OFVC 

MVBiamr  or  UMos 

DEFENCE  OF  “OUR  FATHERS,” 

AND  OF  THE 

ORIGINAL  ORGANIZATION 


OP 


TKB  METKOBZST  EPISCOPAI.  CHURCH, 


AGAINST 


THE  REV.  ALEXANDER  M«CAINE, 


AND  OTHERS  J 

HISTORICAL  AND  CRITICAL  NOTICES  OF  EARLY  AMERICAN 
METHODISM. 


BY  JOHN  EMORY. 


'•  MuUum  refert  ad  retineudain  ecplesiarum  paceni,  inter  ea  qua;  jure  divino  prajcepta  sunt, 
et  qu£E  non  sunt,  accurate  distinguere.” — Grotius. 

When  men  have  caused  such  lantfenlable  divisions  in  the  Church,  by  their  several  parties 
and  factions,  it  concerns  them  to  condemn  all  others  beside  themselves,  lest  they  most  of  all  con- 
h«'mn  themselves  for  making  unnecessary  divisions  in  the  Church  of  God.” — Stillingfleet. 
y 


I’tiRLISHKl)  lii'  A.  DANGS  AND  J.  EMORA,  FOR  THE  METHODIST 
EPISCOrAL  CHi  RClI,  AT  THE  CONFERENCE  OFFICE, 
CROSBY  STREET 


Azor  Hoyt,  Print ci  . 


mm  ^ 


rONTliJNTiS. 


Preface . . . . Page  S' 

Sec.  1.— Episcopacy .  5 

II.  — Sentiments  of  Bishop  White .  15 

III.  — Mr.  Wesley’s  Opinion .  17 

IV.  — Ordination .  18 

V.  — Ordination  of  Dr.  Coke ....  . . .  20 

VI.  — Dr,  Coke’s  Letter  to  Bishop  White .  28  ’j 

VII. — The  Prayer  Book  of  1784 . . .  3B 

VIII. — I’he  Prayer  Book  of  1786 .  41 

IX.  — Bishop  Asbury .  47 

X.  — Testimonies  of  English  Methodists .  57 

XI.  — Dr.  Coke . .  59 

XII.  — Methodist  Episcopacy .  63 

XIII. — Title  Bishop .  66 

XIV.  — Organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church .  69 

XV.  — Leaving  Mr.  Wesley’s  name  off  the  Minutes . 73t 

XVI.  — Mr.  M’Caine’s  Arithmetical  Calculations . 79 

XVII.  — The  Address  to  General  Washington .  81 

XVHI. — “  History  and  mystery”  of  Mr.  M'Caine’s  inconsistency. ...  86 
XIX. — Union  Society  of  Baltimore ; — Conclusion . 8.8 

APPENDIX. 

No.  I.— Respecting  Dr.  Coke’s  Letter  to  Bishop  White. . . S9‘ 

II.  — A  Communication  from  the  Rev.  N.  Bangs .  91 

III.  — The  Minute  to  obey  Mr.  Wesley  . . .  US' 


t 

4 


The  “  fair”  and  “  honourable”  fame  of  »  our  fathers,”  is  a  trea- 
IHE  lair  an  _ 

sure  committed  to  our  comi  ^  defend  which  is  our  common 

tV-i..  “  “”7  7” “I  .*  i 

ir2  ,:m:;  s,  t -.j...  - — 

from  our  hand  the  ready  pen,  ^^^"^^^.butive  visitations  of 

measure  which  we  mete  to  o  ers,  ^  ^  ^  lieed  then,  how 

''Trh.  p.~.  di«u7".  t; 

"Ttetpresentation  which  Mr.  M'Caine  has  given  of 

of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  pubhshe  in  uc  g 

Dictionary,  as  it  regards  myself,  is 

that  work  never  was  indebte  °  M'Caine’s  statement. 

that  it  had  been  imputed  to  me  till  1  saw  j-g^^^'s  Dictioii- 

Jt  had  actually  been  published  m  -  f  <<  Bo?A.ent,”  or 

ary,  and  attributed  to  another  hand,  before  I  was  7“^,bis  cir^um 
Publisher  for  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Chiu  c  ‘ 

a.n.  might  b...  >7"" ‘‘17““;  1“ -rf  1, 

a  sufficient  warrant  for  the  Lpieious  in  thb 

fbiind  them  stated  in  print.  Had  he  been  equally  p 


.-:>0  .^5 

a(  ^ 


/ 


PREFACE. 


iV 

instance,  it  might  iiave  led  him  to  further  inquiry ;  in  which  case  the 
means  of  correct  and  certain  information  were  easily  and  perfectly 
within  his  reach. 

A  communication  from  my  friend,  the  Rev.  N.  Bangs,  explanatory 
of  that  publication,  and  of  his  book  on  Methodist  Episcopacy,”  will 
be  found  in  the  Appendix.  And  in  justice  to  him,  as  Mr.  M‘Caine 
has  attacked  that  book,  it  ought  to  be  known  that  Mr.  M'Caine  him¬ 
self  was  one  of  the  committee  to  whom  it  was  submitted,  before  its 
publication,  and  by  whom  its  publication  was  recommended.  The 
recommendation  stands  on  record,  attested  by  his  own  hand.  And 
whatever  responsibility  may  exist  for  its  doctrines,  or  for  its  official 
acceptance  and  publication  “  for  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,” 
this  “  reverend  gentleman,”  I  conceive,  is  as  much  concerned  in  that 
matter  as  the  author  himself. 

The  work  here  presented  to  the  reader  is  not  a  party  work.  It  is 
an  attempt  to  wipe  off  the  foul  stains  which  have  been  cast  on  us, 
through  the  aspersion  of  our  founders.  If  Mr.  M‘Caine’s  book  be 
true,  it  is  impossible  that  any  Methodist,  who  is  a  real  friend  of  the 
church,  and  of  our  fathers,  can  otherwise  than  feel  himself  disgraced. 
To  such,  a  satisfactory  refutation  of  it  cannot  fail  to  be  acceptable. 
Whatever  may  be  the  claims  of  the  respective  questions  of  ecclesias¬ 
tical  polity  agitated  among  us,  let  them  stand  on  their  own  bases.  To 
attempt  to  promote  any  of  them  by  personal  attacks  on  the  dead,  is  an 
unworthy  resort;  and,  with  the  judicious  and  reflecting,  can  only  be 
regarded  as  indicating  a  deficiency  of  better  arguments. 

In  the  little  leisure  allowed  me  by  other  extensive  and  pressing 
engagements,  I  might  perh?.ps  be  excused  for  craving  some  indulgence 
I'rom  the  reader,  in  replying  to  a  work  in  the  preparation  of  which 
several  years  were  employed.  This,  however,  I  trusys  not  necessary. 
All  that  is  asked  is  a  candid  examination  of  the  ivko/e  of  the  following 
pages,  in  their  consecutive  order.  This  is  the  more  necessary,  as  the 
various  sections  have  a  mutual  connexion  and  dependance ; — subse¬ 
quent  ones  assuming  what  had  been  established  in  the  preceding :  nor 
was  it  found  convenient,  in  all  cases,  to  keep  the  matter  of  the 
respective  titles  entirely  distinct. 

In  preparing  this  Defence,  the  Divine  assistance  has  been  asked  : — 

sending  it  abroad,  the  Divine  blessing  is  now  implored. 

J. 

ypir-Yorl'.  Noi'cmhrr.  1827 


Section  I. — Episcopacy. 

Mr.  M‘Oaine's  first  inquiry  is,  What  views  do  ecclesiastical  writers 
give  us  of  an  episcopal  form  of  church  government  ?” 

In  answer  to  this  inquiry,  he  quotes  certain  authorities  in  support  of 
the  following  positions,  viz. 

That  “  Episcopalians,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word,  are  those  who 
maintain  that  episcopacy  is  of  apostolic  institution,  or  that  the  church 
of  Christ  has  ever  been  governed  by  three  distinct  orders,  bishops, 
presbyters  or  priestSj  and  deacons ; — that  no  one  has  a  right  to  exe¬ 
cute  the  ministerial  office,  without  having  previously  received  a  divine 
commission ; — and  the  exclusive  right  of  granting  this  commission  is 
vested  in  the  bishops  as  successors  of  the  apostles.” 

That  “  It  is  a  principle  universally  established  among  episcopa-** 
lians,  that  a  succession  from  the  apostles  in  the  order  of  bishops,  as 
an  order  superior  to  and  distinct  from  presbyters,  is  a  requisite  without 
which  a  valid  Christian  ministry  cannot  be  preserved  ;  and  that  such 
bishops  alone  possess  the  power  of  ordaining  and  commissioning 
ministers  to  feed  the  flock  of  Christ.” 

That  “  since  the  distinction  of  bishops  and  presbyters  has  been  of 
divine  appointment,  it  necessarily  follows  that  the  power  of  ordination, 
which  is  the  chief  mark  of  this  distinction,  was  reserved  to  the  bishops 
by  the  same  appointment.” 

Mr.  M^Caine  adds,  “  We  have  here  some  of  the  most  prominent 
features  of  an  episcopal  church,  as  laid  down  by  writers  of  great  cele^ 
brity.  We  would  now  ask  our  brethren  who  say  Mr.  Wesley  recom¬ 
mended  the  episcopal  mode  of  church  government,  if  there  is  in  any 
of  the  letters  which  he  wrote^  a  single  line  that  would  lead  us  to 
suppose  that  he  held  any  one  of  the  foregoing  particulars  ?  Nay,  did 
he  not  positively  say  he  did  not  hold  them  ?  What  kind  of  an  episcopal 
government  then  must  it  be  that  has  not  in  it  a  single  feature  of 
episcopacy  as  described  by  ecclesiastical  writers?” 

But  did  not  Mr.M‘Caine  know  that  there  are  “ecclesiastical  writers” 
who  describe  “  Episcopacy”  with  other  features?  If  he  did  not,  his 
want  of  information  is  greater  than  we  could  have  imagined.  If  ho 
did,  his  argument  is  not  ingenuous.  We  can  scarcely  believe  that  it 
can  have  imposed  on  himself:  and  it  is  certainly  too  glaringly  falla¬ 
cious  to  be  imposed  on  others. 

“  It  ought  to  be  understood,”  says  Dr.  Samuel  Miller,  “  that  among 
those  who  espouse  the  episcopal  sidej — there  are  three  classes. 


The  first  consists  of  those  who  believe  that  neither  Christ  nor  hife 
apostles  laid  down  any  particular  form  of  ecclesiastical  government  to 
which  the  church  is  bound  to  adhere  in  all  ages.  That  every  church 
is  free,  consistently  with  the  divine  will,  to  frame  her  constitution 
agreeably  to  her  own  views,  to  the  state  of  society,  and  to  the  exigencies 
of  particular  times.  These  prefer  the  episcopal  government,  and 
some  of  them  believe  that  it  was  the  primitive  form ;  but  they  consider 
it  as  resting  on  the  ground  of  human  expediency  alone,  and  not  of 
divine  appointment.  This  is  well  known  to  have  been  the  opinion  of 
archbishops.  Cranmer,  Grindal,  and  Whitgift ;  of  Bishop  Leighton,  of 
Bishop  Jewel,  of  Dr.  Whitaker,  of  Bishop  Reynolds,  of  Archbishop 
Tillotson,  of  Bishop  Burnet,  of  Bishop  Croft,  of  Dr.  Stillingfleet,  and 
of  a  Ic?ig  list  of  the  most  learned  and  pious  divines  of  the  Church  of 
England,  from  the  reformation  down  to  the  present  day. 

“  Another  class  of  Episcopalians  go  farther.  They  suppose  that 
the  government  of  the  church  by  bishops,  as  a  superior  order  to  pres^ 
hyters,  was  sanctioned  by  apostolic  example,  and  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
all  churches  to  imitate  this  example.  But  while  they  consider  episco¬ 
pacy  as  necessary  to  the  perfection  of  the  church,  they  grant  that  it  is 
by  no  means  necessary  to  her  existence;  and  accordingly,  without 
hesitation,  acknowledge  as  true  churches  of  Christy  many  in  which 
the  episcopal  doctrine  is  rejected,  and  Presbyterian  principles  made 
the  basis  of  ecclesiastical  government.  The  advocates  of  this  opinion^ 
also,  have  been  numerous  and  respectable,  both  among  the  clerical 
and  lay  members  of  the  episcopal  churches  in  England,  and  the 
United  States.  In  this  list  appear  the  venerable  names  of  Bishop 
Hall,  Bishop  Downham, Bishop  Bancroft, Bishop  Andrews,  Archbishop 
Usher,  Bishop  Forbes,  the  learned  Chillingworth,  Archbishop  Wake, 
Bishop  Hoadly,  and  many  more. 

“  A  third  class  go  much  beyond  either  of  the  former.  While  they 
grant  that  God  has  left  men  at  liberty  to  modify  every  other  kind  of 
government  according  to  circumstances,  they  contend  that  one  form 
of  government  for  the  church  is  unalterably  fixed  by  divine  appoint¬ 
ment  ;  that  this  form  is  episcopal ;  that  it  is  absolutely  essential  to  the 
existence  of  the  church  ;  that,  of  course,  wherever  it  is  wanting,  there 
is  no  church,  no  regular  ministry,  no  valid  ordinances ;  and  that  all 
who  are  united  with  religious  societies,  not  conforming  to  this  order, 
are  ‘  aliens  from  Christ,’  '  out  of  the  appointed  way  to  heaven,’  and 
have  no  hope  but  in  the  ‘  uncovenanted  mercies  of  God.’ 

“  It  is  confidently  believed,”  continues  Dr.  Miller,  “  that  the  two 
former  classes,  taken  together,  embrace  at  least  nineteen  parts  out  of 
twenty  of  all  the  Episcopalians  in  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States ; 
while,  so  far  as  can  be  learned  from  the  most  respectable  writings, 
and  other  authentic  sources  of  information,  it  is  only  the  small  remain¬ 
ing  proportion  who  hold  the  extravagant  opinions  assigned  to  the  third 
'  and  last  of  these  classes.” 

If  we  may  rely  on  the  researches  of  Dr.  Miller,  then,  it  is  so  far 
from  being  true,  that  “  it  is  a  principle  tmiversally  established  among 
Episcopalians,  that  a  succession  from  the  apostles  in  the  order  of  bishops, 
as  an  order  superior  to,  and  distinct  from  presbyters,  is  a  requisite 
without  which  a  valid  Christian  ministry  cannot  be  preserved  ;  ana 


that  such  bishops  alone  possess  the  power  of  ordaining  and  commis¬ 
sioning  ministers  to  feed  the  flock  of  Christ  ^  that  at  least  nineteen 
twentieths  of  all  the  Episcopalians  in  Great  Britain,  and  ijiptheJ^ted 
States  hold  no  such  sentiments.*  Neither,  as  we  shall  sljpw,  were 
they  the  sentiments  of  Dr.  Coke,  or  of  Mr.  Asbury,  any  more  than 
Mr.  Wesley :  nor  do  we  believe  that  they  are  entertained  by  a  single 
individual  among  Meth^dist^Epi-scopaliaas,  eitli^r  iii^the  ministry  oi 

The  Irenicum  of  Dr.  Stillingfleet,  subsequently  bishop  Stillingfleet, 
will  be  admitted  to  rank  among  the  productions  of  ecclesiastical 
writers”  of  distinguished  “  celebrity.”  From  this  work  we  shall 
exhibit  a  view  of  episcopacy  somewhat  difierent  from  that  of  Mr. 

M'^^Caine.  t  ^  r 

<  “I  assert,”  says  Dr.  Stillingfleet,  “  any  particular  form  of  govern¬ 
ment  agreed  on  by  the  of  the  church,  consonant  to  the 

general  rules  of  Scripture,  to^Kbo-by  -divine  right ;  that  is,  God,  by  his 
own  laws,  hath  given  men  a  power  and  liberty  to  determine  the  parti¬ 
cular  form  of  dwB'PcfewgO'Vernment  among  them.  And  hence  it  may 
appear,  that  though  one  form  of  government  be  agreeable  to  the  word, 
it  doth  not  follow  that  another  is  not,  or  because  one  is  lawful,  another 
is  unlawful ;  but  one  form  may  be  more  agreeable  to  some  parts,  places, 
people,  and  times,  than  others  are.  J^which  case,  that  form  of 
government  is  to  be  settled  which  is  moskagreeable  to  the^present  state 
of  a  place,  and  is  most  advantageoi^y  ^coiMucible  to  thejiromoting 
the  ends  of  church  governinent  in  that  place  or  nation.”  Irenicum,  pp. 
9-10.  2d  edit.  Lond.  1662.  ; 

“  Matters  of  fact,  and  mere  apostolical  practice,'may,  I  freely  grant, 
receive  much  light  from  the  records  of  succeeding  ages ;  but  they  can 
never  give  a  man’s  understanding  sufiicient  ground  to  infer  any  divine 
law,  arising  from  those  facts  attested  to  by  the  practice,  or  records  of 
succeeding  ages.”  Ibid.  p.  151, 

In  relation  to  arguments  drawn  from  the  testimony  of  antiquity, 
before  their  authority  can  be  admitted  in  this  controversy.  Dr.  Stil¬ 
lingfleet  affirms,  “  these  things  must  be  manifested  .—that  such  things 
were  unquestionably  the  practice  of  those  ages  and  persons ;  tfigt  their 
practice  was  the  same  as  the  apostles ;  ^q^what  they  did  was  not  from 
any  prudential  motives,  but  by  virtue  of  a  law  which  did  bind  them  to 
that  practice.  Which  things  are  easily  passed  over  by  the  most  eager 
disputers  of  the  controversy  about  church  government,  but  how  neces¬ 
sary  they  are  to  be  proved,  before  any  form  of  government  be  assert- 

*  Gisborne,  also,  asserts  that  they  are  not  the  sentiments  of  the  church  of 
England. — Survey,  p.  254. 

t  The  object  of  Stillingfleet,  in  this  work,  was,  to  discuss  and  examine  the  divine 
ri^ht  of  the  different  forms  of  church  government,  according  to  the  principles  of 
the  law  of  nature,  the  positive  laws  of  God,  the  practice  of  the  apostles  and  . 
the  primitive  church,  and  the  judgment  of  reformed  divines;  m  order  to  lay  a 
foundation  for  the  peace  of  the  church,  and  for  the  accommodation  ot  the  dilier- 
ences  which  then  existed.  His  aim  was  to  moderate  the  extravagant  pretensions 
of  high  churchmen,  on  the  one  side,  and  the  intemperate  zeal  of  those,  on  tlie 
other,  who  were  for  destroying  episcopacy  altogether.  With  what  ability,  and 
excellent  temper,  and  moderation,  he  performed  this  task,  will  appear  m  the 
sequel. 


ed,  so  necessary,  that  without  it  there  can  be  no  true  church,  any 
weak  understanding  may  discern.”  Ih.  p.  152. 

V"  of  apostolical  practice  binds  stilL  though  not  the  mdivi- 

■  /  (luafactwn^hsit  as  they  regulated  churches  for  the  best  conveniency 
/  (^sovermhg  them,  so  should  the  pastors  of  churches  now.”  lb, 
p.  isT 

Any  one  particular  fornjy  of  froverniflen^p  the  church  is  neither 
"  expr*  sse3  in  any  direct  terms  by  Christ,  nor  can  be  deduced  by  just 
consequence  ;  therefore  no  such  form  of  government  is  instituted  by 
Christ.”  Ib.  p.  182. 

“  But  though  nothing  can  be  inferred  from  hence  as  to  the  necessity 
of  that  office  to  continue  in  the  church,  which  Timothy  and  Titus 
were  invested  in  ;  yet  from  the  superiority  of  that  power  which  they 
enjoyed  over  those  churches,  whether  as  evangelists,  or  as  fixed  bishops, 
these  two  things  may  be  inferred  ■/^Fljg|^That  the  superiority  of  some 
church  officers  over  others  is  not  contrary  to  the  rule  of  the  gospel : 
for  all  parties  acknowledge  the  superiority  of  their  power  above  the 
presbyters  of  the  several  cities ;  only  the  continuanc^oi  this  power  is 
disputed  by  many,  But  if  they  had  any  such  power  at  all,  it  is  enough 
for  my  present  design,  viz.  that  such  a  superiority  is  not  contrary  to 
the  gospel  rule :  or  that  the  nature  of  the  government  of  the  church 
doth  not  imply  a  necessary  equality  among  the  governors  of  it. 
Secondlu.  Hence  I  infer  th#^  is  not  repugnant  to  the  constitution  of 
church  in  apostolical  time%  for  men  to  have  power  over  more 
than  one  particular  congregation-  -  For  such  a  power  Jimothy  and 
Titus  had  ;  which,  had  it  been  contrary  to  the  nature  of  the  regiment 
of  churches,  we  should  never  have  read  of  in  the  first  planted  churches. 
vSo  that  if  those  popular  arguments  of  a  necessary  relation  between  a 
pastor  and  particular  people,  of  personal  knowledge,  care,  and  inspec¬ 
tion,  did  destroy  the  lawfulness  of  extending  that  care  or  charge  to 
many  particular  congregations,  they  would  likewise  overthrow  the 
nature,  end,  and  design  of  the  office  which  Timothy  and  Titus  acted 
in :  which  had  a  relation  to  a  multitude  of  particular  and  congrega¬ 
tional  churches.  Whether  their  power  was  extraordinary  or  no,  I 
now  dispute  'ffot';  but  whether  such  a  power  be  repugnant  to  the  gos¬ 
pel  or  TTo,  which  from  their  practice  it  is  evident  that  it  is  not.”  lb. 
pp.  186,  187. 

The  foundation  of  this  power  was  laid  in  the  power  which  the  apos¬ 
tles  were  invested  with,  which  was  extended  over  many,  both  churches 
and  pastors.-4-“  If  it  be  said,  The  apostolical poiver^. being  extraordi¬ 
nary,  must  cease  with  the  persons  which  enjoyed  it  I  answer,  ^rst. 
What  w'as  extraordinary  did  cease ;  but  all  the  dispute  is  what  was 
extraordinary,  and  what  was  not .—j^econdly ,  By  ceasing  may  be  meant, 
either  ceasing,  as  to  its  necessifyy or  ceasing,  as  to  its  lawfulness.  I 
say  not,  but  that  the  necessity  of  the  office,  as  in  their  persons,  for  the 
first  preaching  and  propagating  the  gospel,  did  cease  with  them;  but 
that  after  their  death,  it  became  unlawful  for  any  particular  persons  to 
take  the  care  and  charge  of  diocesan  churches,  I  deny.  For  to  make 
a  thing  unlawful,  which  was  before  lawful,  there  must  be  some  express 
prohibition,  forbidding  any  further  use  of  such  a  power ,  which,  I  suppose,^ 
'  men  will  not  easily  produce  in  the  word  of  God.” — lb.  pp.  194-5.  _ 


9 


Tlie  extending  of  any  ministerial  power,  is  not  the  appointing  of 
any  neio  ojficc ;  because  every  minister  of  the  gospel  hath  a  relation 
in  actiiprimo'^  (primarily)  “  to  the  whole  church  of  God  ;  the  restraint 
and  enlargement  of  which  power  is  subject  to  positive  determinations 
of  prudence  and  conveniency, — and  therefore  if  the  church  see  it  fit 
for  some  men  to  have  this  power  enlarged,  for  better  government  in 
some,  and  restrained  in  others,  that  enlargement  is  the  appointing  no 
new  office,  but  the  making  use  of  a  power  already  enjoyed  for  the 
benefit  of  the  church  of  God.  This  being  a  foundation  tending  so 
fully  to  clear  the  lawfulness  of  that  government  in  the  church,  which 
implies  a  superiority  and  subordination  of  the  officers  of  the  church  to 
one  another ;  and  the  church,  using  her  prudence  in  ordering  the 
bounds  of  her  officers,  I  shall  do  these  two  things :  First,  Show 
that  the  power  of  every  minister  of  the  gospel  doth  primarily,  and 
habitually  respect  the  church  in  common.  Secondly,  That  the  church 
may,  in  a  peculiar  manner,  single  out  some  of  its  officers  for  the  due 
administration  of  ecclesiastical  power.”  Ib.  p.  195. 

The  officers  of  the  church  may  in  a  peculiar  manner  attribute  a 
larger  and  more  extensive  power  to  some  particular  persons,  for  the 
more  convenient  exercise  of  their  common  power — grant  to  some  the 
executive  part  of  that  power,  which  is  originally  and  fundamentally 
common  to  them  all.  For  our  better  understanding  of  this,  we  must 
consider  a  twofold  power  belonging  to  church  officers,  a  power  of  order.) 
and  a  power  of  jurisdiction.'^  Ib.  p.  197, 

Under  this  distinction  he  shows,  that  though  every  presbyter,  primarily 
artd  inherently,  as  to  order,  possesses  a  capacity  for  the  highest  ministe¬ 
rial  acts,  yet  “  some  farther  authority  is  necessary  in  a  church  constituted" 
(or  organized)  “  besides  the  power  of  order ;  and  when  this  power, 
either  by  consent  of  the  pastors  of  the  church,  or  by  the  appointment  of  a 
Christian  magistrate,  or  both,  is  devolved  to  some  particular  persons, 
though  quoad  aptitudinern"  (as  to  the  capacity  or  fitness)  “  the  power 
remain  in  every  presbyter,  yet  quoad  executionem,"  (as  to  the  actual  dis¬ 
charge  or  execution  of  it)  “it  belongs  to  those  who  are  so  appointed. 
And  therefore  Carnero  determines  that  ordination  doth  not  belong  to 
the  power  of  order,  but  to  the  power  of  jurisdiction,  and  therefore  is 
subject  to  positive  restraints,  by  prudential  determinations.  By  this 
we  may  understand  how  lawful  the  exercise  of  an  episcopal  power  may 
be  in  the  church  of  God,  supposing  an  equality  in  all  church  officers 
as  to  the  power  of  order.  And  how  incongruously  they  speak,  who 
supposing  an  equality  in  the  presbyters  of  churches  at  first,  do  cry  out, 
that  the  church  takes  upon  her  the  office  of  Christ,  if  she  delegates 
any  to  a  more  peculiar  exercise  of  the  power  of  jurisdiction  "  Ib.  pp. 
197-8. 

“  Before  the  jurisdiction  of  presbyters  was  restrained  by  mutual 
consent,  in  this  instant  doubtless,  the  presbyters  enjoyed  the  same 
liberty  that  the  presbyters  among  the  Jews  did,  of  ordaining  other 
presbyters,  by  that  pow'er  they  were  invested  in  at  their  own  ordina¬ 
tion. - In  the  first  primitive  church,  the  presbyters  all  acted  in 

common  for  the  welfare  of  the  church,  and  either  did  or  might  ordain 
others  to  the  same  authority  with  themselves ;  because  the  intrinsical 
power  of  order  is  equally  in  them,  and  in  those  who  w^ere  after  appointed 


lU 

aroveniors  over  presbyteries.  And  the  collation  of  orders  doth  come 
from  the  power  of  order,  and  not  merely  from  the  power  of  jurisdiction. 

It  heins  likewise  fully  acknowledged  by  the  schoolmen  th&t  bishops 
are  superior  above  presbyters,  as  to  the  power  of  order.  Ib. 

is  evident  Jerome  attributes  the  first  original  of  that  cwors 
votestas,"  [delegated  power,  or  power  given  by  choice]  “  as  he  calls 
ft  elsewhere,  in  the  bishop  above  presbyters,  not  to  any  apostolical 
institution,  but  to  the  free  choice  of  the  presbyters  themselves  :  which 
doth  fully  explain  what  he  means  by  consuetudo  ecchsue  before  spoken 
of,  viz. ;  that  which  came  up  by  a  voluntary  act  of  the  governors  of 

..Piirrhes  themselves. - ^fo  which  we  may  add  what  Eutychius 

the  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  saith  in  his  Oi  igines  Ecclemce  Alexan- 

drinee  published  in  Arabic  by  our  most  learned  Selden,  who  expressly 

affirms, the  twelve  presbyters  constituted  by  Mark  upon  the 

of  the  see,  did  choose  out  of  their  number  one  to  be 

and  the  other  eleven  did  lay  thar  hands  upon  him,  and  blessed  him, 

and  made  him  patriarch."  Ib.  p.  274.  (■,„ 

“  Antonins  de  Rosellis  fully  expresseth  my  meaning  in  this  —(in 
the  hrst  period  of  the  church.)  “  Every  presbyter  and  presbyters  did 
ordain  ifidifferently ,  and  thence  arose  schisms:  ®  ''^^ffnThe 

restrained  and  reserved  peculiarly  to  »me  per^ns  who  did  act  in 
several  presbyteries,  as  the  p-it-jn,  or  Prince  of  the  Sanhedrm, 
both  parties  granting  that  in  the  church  such  a  restraint  was  laid  upon 
the  liberty  of  ordaining  presbyters :  and  the  exercise  of  that  power 
may  be  restrained  still,  granting  it  to  be  radically  and 
them  So  that  this  controversy  is  not  such  as  should  divide  the  church. 
For  those  that  are  for  ordinations  only  by  a  superior  order  in  the 
rvhnrph  acknowledging  a  radical  power  for  ordination  in  presbyters, 
S  may  be  -  case  of  necessity,  do  thereby  make  it  evi¬ 

dent,  that  none  who  grant  t^hat,  do  think  that  any  P* 
hath  forbidden  presbyters  the  power  of  ordination  ;  for  then  it  “e 
whollv  unlawful,  and  so  in  case  of  necessity  it  cannot  be  valid.  Which 
Ictrinri  dare ’with  some  confidence  assert  to  be  a  stranger  to  our 
Church  of  England,— on  the  other  side,  those  who  hold  ordinations 
by  presbyters  Uwful,  do  not  therefore  hold  them 
beimr  a  matter  of  liberty,  and  not  of  necessity--this  power  then  may 
be  restrained  by  those  who  have  the  care  of  the  church  s  peace,  and 
matters  of  liberty  being  restrained,  ought  to  be  submitted  to,  in  order 

‘*'Mn‘'th“  matter  X'lf,  /believe  upon  the  strictest  inquiry  Meffina’s 
iudgment  will  prove  true,  that  Jerome,  Austin,  Ambrose  Sedulius, 
Primasius  Chrysostome,  Theodoret,  Theophylact,  were  a  1  of  Aerius 
bis  judgment  as  to  the  identity  of  both  name  and  ^ 

nresbvters  in  the  primitive  church;  but  here  lay  the  dincfc"c?- 
Aerius  from  hence  Proceeded  to  separation  from  bishops 
churches  because  they  were  bishops.  And  Blondell  well  > 

That  the  main  ground  why  Aerius  was  condemned  was 
sarv  separation  from  the  church  of  Sebastia;  and  those  bishops,  too, 

ag^ed  with  him  in  other  things,-_whereas  Jerome  was  so  far 

from  thinking  it  necessary  to  cause  a  schism  m  the  churc  ,  .  P 


^  11  ■ 

tating  from  bishops,  that  his  opinion  is  clear,  that  the  first  institution 
of  them  was  for  preventing  schisms;  and  therefore,  for  peace  and 
unity,  he  thought  their  institution  very  useful  in  the  church  of  God.” 
Ib.  pp.  276-7. 

‘‘  When  the  apostles  were  taken  out  of  the  way,  who  kept  the  main 
power  in  their  own  hands,  of  ruling  the  several  presbyteries,  or  dele¬ 
gated  some  to  do  it,  (who  had  a  main  hand  in  planting  churches  with 
the  apostles,  and  thence  are  called,  in  Scripture,  sometimes  fellow 
labourers  in  the  Lord,  and  sometimes  evangelists,  and  by  Theodoret 
apostles,  but  of  a  second  order,)  after,  I  say,  these  were  deceased,  and 
the  main  power  left  in  the  presbyteries,  the  several  presbyters  enjoying 
an  equal  power  among  themselves,-^ - the  wiser  and  graver  sort  con¬ 

sidered  the  abuses  following  the  promiscuous  use  of  this  power  of 
ordination,  and  withal,  having  in  their  minds  the  excellent  frame  of 
the  government  of  the  church,  under  the  apostles  and  their  deputies, 
and  for  preventing  of  future  schisms  and  divisions  among  themselves, 
they  unanimously  agreed  to  choose  one  out  of  their  number  who  was 
best  qualified  for  the  management  of  so  great  a  trust,  and  to  devolve 
the  exercise  of  the  power  of  ordination  and  jurisdiction  to  him  ;  yet  so 
as  that  he  act  nothing  of  importance  without  the  consent  and  concur¬ 
rence  of  the  presbyters,  who  were  still  to  be  as  the  common  council  to  the 
bishop.  This  I  take  to  be  the  true  and  account  of  the  original 
of  episcopacy  in  the  primitive  church,  according  to  Jerome :  which 
model  of  government,  thus  contrived  and  framed,  sets  forth  to  us  a 
most  lively  character  of  that  great  wisdom  and  moderation,  which  then 
ruled  the  heads  and  hearts  of  the  primitive  Christians,  and  which, 
ivhen  men  have  studied  and  searched  all  other  ways,  (the  abuses  inci¬ 
dent  to  this  government  through  the  corruptions  of  men  and  times 
being  retrenched)  will  be  found  the  most  agreeable  to  the  primitive  form^ 
both  as  asserting  the  due  interest  of  the  presbyteries,  and  allowing  the 
due  honour  of  episcopacy ,  and  by  the  great  harmony  of  both,  carrying 
on  the  affairs  of  the  church  with  the  greatest  unity,  concord,  and 
peace.  Which  form  of  government,  I  cannot  see  how  any  possible  rea¬ 
son  can  be  produced,  by  either  party,  why  they  may  not  with  cheerful^ 
ness  embrace  it''  Ib.  281-2. 

Thus  we  have  once  more  cleared  Jerome  and  the  truth  together ; 
1  only  wish  that  all  that  are  of  his  judgment  for  the  practice  of  the 
primitive  church,  were  of  his  temper  for  the  practice  of  their  own ; 
and  while  they  own  not  episcopacy  as  necessary  by  a  divine  right,  yet 
(being  duly  moderated,  and  joined  with  presbyteries)  they  may  em¬ 
brace  it,  as  not  only  a  lawful,  but  very  useful  constitution  in  the  church 
of  God.  By  which,  we  may  see,  what  an  excellent  tetnper  may  be 
found  out,  most  fully  consonant  to  the  primitive  church  for  the  manage¬ 
ment  of  ordinations  and  church  power,  viz.  by  the  presidency  of 

THE  BISHOP  AND  THE  CONCURRENCE  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY.”  Ib, 

p.  283. 

^  “  All  that  I  have  to  say  then,  concerning  the  course  taken  by  the 

apostles,  in  settling  the  government  of  the  churches, - lies  in  these 

three  propositions, - viz. ;  That  neither  can  we  have  that  certainty 

of  apostolical  practice,  which  is  necessary  to  constitute  a  divine  right; 
nor,  secondly,  is  it  probable  that  the  apostles  did  tie  themselves  up  to 


12 

any  one  fixed  course  in  imdelling  clinches;  nor,  thirdly, 

dotk  it  necessarily  follow  that  toe  must  observe  the  same  ?  lb.  p.  28  /. 

InSace!  lib.  4,  cap.  43,  he”  (Iren=eus)  “  not  only  asserts  the 
succession  of  presbyters  to  the  apostles,  but  likewise  attributes  the 
SUCCESSIO  EPISCOPATUS”  {tlic  succcssion  of  the  Episcopate)  to  th^e 
verv  nresbyters.”  Whence  comes  then  the  community  of  names  still, 
that  those  who  are  said  to  succeed  the  apostles,  are  called  bishops  in 
te  ^ace.  but  presbyters  in  another,  and  .he  vek.  succession  op 

EPISCOPACY  ATTRIBUTED  TO  PRESBYTERS  '  lb.  p.  OU/. 

'  “  And  ereat  probability  there  is,  that  where  churches  were  planted 
by  presbyfers,  a^the  church  of  France  by  Andochius  and  Inignus  that 
afterwarL  upon  the  increase  of  churches  and  presbyters  to  rule  them 
they  did  froin  among  themselves  choose  one  to  be  as  the  bishop  o\er 

them  as  Pothinus  was  at  Lyons.  For  we  no  where  read  in  those  tciHy 

palliations  of  churches,  that  where  there  were  presbyters  already,  they ^ 
cent  to  other  churches  to  desire  episcopal  ordination  from  them. 

^'’■‘•^it^ra  known  instance,  that  in  the  ordination 
1  ■  n!  Ti  nme  there  were  only  two  bishops  concerned  and  one  pres- 

tter  wh^^^eas’  accordln^rthe  fourth  cLn  of  the  Nicene  council, 

Ihree  bishops  are  absolutely  required  for  point  of  sLeTsbn 

then  Pelagius  was  no  canonical  bishop,  and  so  the  po  nt  of  succession 
thereby  fails  in  the  church  of  Rome :  or  else  a  presbyter  hath  the  same 
iLinsical  power  of  ordination  which  a  bishop  hath, 
illg  a  bishop,]  “  but  it  is  only  restrained  by  ecclesiastical  laws. 

believe  there  will,  upon  the  most  impartial  survey,  scarce  be  one 

churL  of  the  Peformatb/brought,  which  doth  embrace  any  forin  o 
government,  because  it  looked  upon  ‘hat  form  as  only  "eeessary  by  an 
fmaltprable  standing  law;‘vbut  every  one  took  up  that  prm  oj  govein 
ment  which  was  judged  most  suitabU  to  the  state  and  condition  of  their 

'""flPlf^^hPPtltPPPo  it  evident,  that  the  main  -t- 

tlina  episcopal  government  in  this  nation,  (England,)  '™! 
counted  any  pretence  oi  divine  rigid,  but  the  conveniency  «/  . 

of  church  golemment  to  the  state  and  condition  of  the  church  at  the 

time  of  its  reformation:’  lh.p.^9,h.  i  nf  the  Entrlish ' 

“The  first  who  solemnly  appeared  in  Abdication  of  the  En^isii 
hierarchy  was  archbishop  Whitgift:  yet  he  asserts 
sovernment  is  expressed  in  the  word,  or  can  necessarily  be  concluded 
from  thence:  and  again;  no  focoi  fcf^’fch  government  u  bytte 
Scrivture  prescribed  to,  or  commanded  the  church  of  God.  lb.  p. 

“^rat  great  light  of  the  German  church,  Chemnitius,  assets  the 
churches  freedom  and  liberty  as  ‘b ‘he  orders  and  degrees  of 
who  superintend  the  affairs  of  the  church  ;  which  he  builds  on  a  three 
m  foundation :  1.  That  the  word  of  God  "b  -here  commands  WmJ 
or  how  many  degrees  and  orders  of  ministers  ‘h®™  ^hall  .  |  ^ 

in  tlip  anostles’  times  there  was  not  the  like  numhei  in  «//  cliii  » 
s  rvidenrfrom  pTul’s  epistles.  3.  Thai  in  the  apostles’  times,  m  sonic 
phees,  one  person  did  n^‘H»age  the  ..rrrmZ  hdon 

Which  three  propositions  urc  the  very  I'asis  ot  all  our  o  g  g 


7 


la 

_ is  it  appears  by  the  practice  of  the  apostolical 

Turh'Tat  he  “tate  ^  aL  necessity  of  every  particulav 
ehurch,  ought  to  be  the  standard  arrd  —..  what  offices  a.rd  degrees 

churchtpower  and  liberty  to  add  several  orders  of  in.nisters,  accord- 

ins  as  it  iudseth  them  tend  to  edification;  and  sarth,  he  is  ar 
Condemning  the  course  of  the  primitive  church  .n  erecting  one  to 
Sop  over^the  presbyters,  for  better  managing  church  affairs.  Ib. 

Fresevil  a  divine  of  the  French  church,  (whom  the  English  bishop 
Hall  cills  ‘  wise  Fregevil,  a  deep  head,’)  m  his  ‘  Politick  Refoinier 
says  “  When  the  apostles  first  planted  churches  the  same  being  small 
and  m  affliction,  there  were  not  as  yet  any  other  bishops,  priests,  or 
j  K  *  ♦lifvnmplvps '  they  were  the  bishops  and  deacons,  and 

toSther  served  the  tables.  These  men  therefore  whom  God  raiseth 
up"  to  plant  a  church,  can  do  no  better,  than  after  the  exam^ple  of  the 
apostles,  to  bear  themselves  m  equal  authority.  I  • 

Beza  another  eminent  Presbyterian  divine,  says,  H 
from  th’inkincr  that  the  human  order  of  episcopacy  was  brought  into 
fhe  church  though  rashness  or  ambition,  ‘hat  none  'Y® 

have  been  very  useful  as  long  as  bishops  were  good.  And  those  tnat 

bmh  will  and  can,  let  them  enjoy  it  still. - And  elsewhere  profes^ 

cth  all  reverence,  esteem,  and  honour  to  be  due  to  all  such  “oder 
bishops  who  strive  to  imitate  the  example  of  the  primitive  bishops,  ii 
a  duCreformatTon  of  the  church  of  God,  accord  ng  to  the  rule  of  the 
word.  And  looks  on  it  as  a  most  false  and  impudent  calumny  of  some 
that  said  as  though  they”  [of  Geneva]  “  intended  to  prescribe  their 
form  of  ffovernmeffl  to  all  other  churches;  as  though  they  were  like 
some  ignorant  fellows  who  think  nothing  good  but  what  they  do  tliem- 

^'’'To'Lvludate'tL  authority  of  Stillingfleet’s  Irenicum,  it  has  been 
obiected  by  some  extravagant  asserters  of  the  apostolical  succession 
%iscopacy  ,  that  it  was  L  indigested  work,  written  when  the  author 
was^oui?^^  Ld  was  subsequently  retracted.  How  far  this  representa- 
on  is  correct,  the  following  facts  will  show.— After  being  severa 
years  engaged  in  the  composition  of  that  work,  the  author  F^blished  jt 
in  1659  at  the  acre  of  twenty  four.  Three  years  afterwards,  in  1662 
he  published  a  second  edition  ;  and  the  sarne  year  he  gave  to  the  world 
his^Origines  Sacrie.  Soon  after  these  publications,  he 
san  the  celebrated  bishop  Saunderson,  at  a  visitation.  The  bi.hop 
seeing  so  young  a  man,  could  hardly  believe  it  was  Stillingfleet,  whom 
he  ha^d  hitherto  known  only  by  his  writings;  and,  aftei  having  em¬ 
braced  him  said.  He  much  rather  expected  to  have  seen  one  as  con¬ 
siderable  for  his  age,  as  he  had  already  shown  himself  for  his 
See  the  Life  of  Bishop  Stillingfleet,  pp.  12-16,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Mi - 

ler. - “  When  a  divine  of  acknowledged  talents 

Dr.  Miller,  “  after  spending  several  years  in  a  composition 
length,  deliberately  corpmits  it  to  the  press ; 

the  subject,  and  hearing  the  remarks  of  his  ^  thirJcoiM 

>onger/he  publishes  it  a  second  time;  and  wh^n,  after  this  second 


14 


•piib'ticaiion,  life  IS  complimented  for  bis  great  erudition,  by  one  of  tbf 
most  able  and  learned  dignitaries  of  the  age,  there  seems  httle  room 
for  a  charge  of  haste,  or  want  of  digestion.  Letters,  pp.  270,  271,  n. 

“  The  truth  seems  to  be,”  continues  Dr.  Miller,  that  Dr.  Stilling* 
fleet  finding  that  the  opinions  of  a  number  of  influential  men  in  the 
church  were  diflerent  from  those  which  he  had  advanced  in  this  work ; 
and  hading  also  that  a  fixed  adherence  to  them  might  be  adverse  to 
the  interests  of  the  established  church,  in  which  he  sought  preferment, 
he  made  a  kind  of  vague  and  feeble  recantation  ;  and  wrote  m  favour 
of  the  apostolical  origin  of  episcopacy.  It  is  remarkable,  however,  that 
this  prelate,  in  answer  to  an  accusation  of  inconsistency,  between  his 
early  and  his  latter  writings  on  this  subject,  assigned  another  reason 
besides  a  change  of  opinion,  viz.  that  the  former  were  written  before 
the  laws  were  established:'  But  in  whatever  degree  his  opinion  may 
have  been  altered,  his  reasonings  and  authorities  have  undergone  no 
change.  They  remain  in  all  their  force,  and  have  never  been  refuted, 

either  by  himself,  or  by  others.”  lb.  p.  271.  r.  -  .  .i,  , 

Dr.  White,  now  bishop  White,  of  Pennsylvania,  was  of  opinion,  tha 
that  learned  prelate,  Stillingfleet,  was  most  probably  not  dissatisfed 
with  that  part  of  the  Irenicum  which  would  have  been  to  his  (Ur. 
White’s)  purpose;  and  which,  of  course,  as  we  shall  presently  show, 
is  to  our  purpose.  Burnet,  the  contemporary  and  friend  of 
rteet,  says,  (History  of  his  own  Times,  anno  1661,)  To  avoid  the 
imputation  that  book  brought  on  him,  he  went  into  the  humours  of  an 
hinh  sort  of  people  beyond  what  became  him,  perhaps  beyond  his  own 
sense  of  things.”  “  The  book,  however,”  bishop  White  adds,  was,  it 
seems,  easier  retracted  than  refuted:  for  though  offensive  to  many  of 
both  parties,  it  was  managed,  says  the  same  author,  [Burnet,]  with  so 
much  learning  and  stdU,  that  none  of  either  side  ever  ""“k  to 
answer  it.”  See  “  The  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  in  the  United 

States  Considered,”  p.  22.  ^  ,  .  ,  .  ,• 

“  Luther  and  the  leading  divines  of  his  denomination,  supposed 
that  a  system”  [of  church  government]  “embracing  some  degree  of 
imnarity”  [among  ministers]  “  was,  in  general,  expedient;  and  accord- 
insly,  in  proceeding  to  organize  their  churches,  appointed 
fcndents,  who  enjoyed  a  kind  of  pre-eminence,  and  were  vested  with 
peculiar  powers.  But  they  explicitly  acknowledged  this  office  to  be  a 
human,  and  not  a  divine  institution.”  Miller^  Letters,  p.  237. 

The  Lutheran  churches  in  Sweden  and  Denmark  are  Episcopal. 
See  Mosheim,  vol.  iv,  p.  279.  Yet  all  ecclesiastical  historians  agree 
that  when  the  Reformation  was  introduced  into  Sweden,  the  nrst 
ministers  who  undertook  to  ordain  were  only  presbyters.  Miller  s 


“  It  is  equally  certain  that  in  the  ordination  of  a  bishop,  if  the  other 
bishops  happen  to  be  absent,  the  more  grave  and  aged  of  the  ordinary 
pastors  supply  their  place,  and  are  considered  as  fully  invested  with 

the  ordaining  power Ib.  p.  241.  •  j  v  .r.  n/r 

In  case  of  necessity,  the  same  power  is  recognised  by  the  Method¬ 
ist  Episcopal  Church,  as  fully  invested  in  her  body  of  presbyters.  Yet, 
if  by  death,  expulsion,  or  otherwise,  there  should  at  any  time  be  no 
vbi^hop  remaining  among  us,  even  in  this  case  the  remaining  presbv- 


15 


Ters  would  not  themselves  directly  ordain  new  presbyters,  but  would 
first  set  apart  another  general  superintendent,  or  superintendents,  as 
their  constituted  organ  for  this  purpose. 


Section  II. — Sentiments  of  Bishop  Wkiie. 

In  the  year  1783,  a  pamphlet  was  published  in  Philadelphia,  entitiejf 
“  The  case  of  the  Episcopal  churches  in  the  United  States  considered. 
This  w'ork  has  always  been  considered  as  the  production  of  Dr.White, 
now  Bishop  White,  of  Pennsylvania.  Dr.  Miller,  in  his  Letters,  pub¬ 
lished  in  1807,  p.  270,  attributes  it  to  him  by  name  ;  and  we  have  not 
understood  that  its  authenticity  has  ever  been  denied.  A  new  edition 
of  it  has  recently  been  published  in  Philadelphia,  by  Wm.  Stavely, 
publisher  of  the  Philadelphia  Recorder,  a  paper  edited  by  a  distinguished 
clergyman  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

It  will  be  seen,  from  this  work,  with  what  ability  Dr.White  aigued 
the  case  of  the  Episcopal  churches  in  the  United  States  at  that  period  : 
and  how  equally  strikingly  his  arguments  were  adapted  to  the  state  ol 
the  Methodist  societies  at  the  same  period. 

In  a  “  sketch  of  a  frame  of  government”  offered  by  Dr.  White,  he 
says,  “  In  each  smaller  district,  there  should  be  elected  a  general  vestry 
or  convention,  consisting  of  a  convenient  number,  (the  minister  to  be 

one,) _ They  should  elect  a  clergyman  their  permanent  president : 

who,  in  conjunction  with  other  clergymen  to  be  also  appointed  by  the 
body,  may  exercise  such  powers  as  are  purely  spiritual,  particularhj 
that  of  admitting  to  the  ministry p.  11. 

Again ;  “  The  conduct  meant  to  be  recommended, - -is  to  include 

in  the  proposed  frame  of  government  a  general  approbation  of  episco¬ 
pacy  and  a  declaration  of  an  intention  to  procure  the  succession  as 
soon  as  conveniently  may  be ;  but  in  the  meantime  to  carry  the  plan 
into  effect  without  ivaiting  for  the  succession''  Ib.  p.  15. 

‘‘  But  it  will  be  also  said,”  continues  Dr.  White,  “that  the  very 
name  of  ^bishop'  is  offensive 5  if  so,  change  it  for  another ;  let  the 
superior  clergyman  be  a  president,  a  superintendent,  or  in  plain  Eng¬ 
lish,  and  according  to  the  literal  translation  of  the  original,  an  overseer. 
However,  if  names  are  to  be  reprobated,  because  the  powers  annexed 
to  them  are  abused,  there  are  few  appropriated  to  either  civil  or  eccle¬ 
siastical  distinctions,  which  would  retain  their  places  in  our  catalogue.  ’ 
Ib.  p.  17. 

‘‘  The  other  part  of  the  proposal”  of  Dr.  White,  “  was  an  immediate 
execution  of  the  plan  without  waiting  for  the  episcopal  succession. 
This  is  founded  on  the  presumption,  that  the  worship  of  God  and  the 
instruction  and  reformation  of  the  people,  are  the  principal  objects  ol 
ecclesiastical  discipline - .”  Ib. 

“  It  will  be  said,  we  ought  to  continue  as  we  are  with  the  hope  of 
obtaining  it”  [the  succession]  hereafter.  But”  continues  Dr.  White, 

are  the  acknowledged  ordinances  of  Christ’s  holy  religion  to  be  sus¬ 
pended  for  years,  perhaps  as  long  as  the  present  generation  shall  con¬ 
tinue,  out  of  delicacy  to  a  disputed  point,  and  that  relating  only  to 
externals  1 - All  the  obligations  of  conformity  to  the  divine  ordi¬ 

nances,  all  the  arguments  which  prove  the  connexion  between  public 


IG  - 

warship  and  the  morals  of  a  people,  combine  to  urge  the  adopting- 
snme  speedy  measures,  to  provide  for  the  public  ministry  in  these 
churches.  If  such  as  have  been  above  recommended,”  [viz,  ordina¬ 
tion  by  the  president  clergyman  in  conj action  with  other  clergymen 
appointed  by  the  body]  “should  be  adopted,  and  the  Episcopal  suc- 
ce^ion  afterwards  obtained,  any  supposed  imperfections  of  the  inter¬ 
mediate  ordinations  might,  if  it  were  judged  proper,  be  supplied,  W^/i- 
out  acknowledging  their  nullity,  by  a  conditional  ordination  resembling 
that  of  conditional  baptism  in  the  liturgy.”  Ib. 

But  if  the  “  succession”  had  never  been  “  afterwards  obtained, 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  Dr.  White  would  have  maintained  the 
validity  of  the  ordinations  on  his  plan,  without  the  succession.  For, 
as  he  very  justly  argues  in  another  place,  “  If  even  those  who  hold 
episcopacy  to  be  of  divine  right,  conceive  the  obligation  to  it  to  be  not 
binding  when  that  idea  would  be  destructive  of  public  worship,  much 
more  must  they  think  so,  who  indeed  venerate  and  prefer  that  form, 
as  the  most  ancient  and  eligible,  but  without  any  idea  of  divine  right 
in  the  case.  This  the  author  believes  to  be  the  sentiment  of  the  great 
body  of  Episcopalians  in  America  ;  in  which  respect  they  have  in  then- 
favour  unquestionably  the  sense  of  the  church  of  England,  and,  as  he 
believes,  the  opinions  of  her  most  distinguished  prelates  for  piety, 

virtue,  and  abilities.”  Ib.  p.  25.  u  a  a 

To  make  any  particular  form  of  church  government,  though  adopted 
by  the  apostles,  unalterably  binding,  Dr.  White  maintains,  “  it  must 
be  shown  enjoined  in  positive  precept.”  Ib.  He  remarks  farther,  that 
Dr.  Calamy  having  considered  it  as  the  sense  of  the  church,’  [of  Eng-^ 
land,]  “  in  the  preface  to  the  ordinal,  that  the  three  orders  were  ot 
divine  appointment,  and  urged  it  as  a  reason  for  nonconformity ;  the 
bishop  [Hoadly]  with  evident  propriety ,  remarks,  that  the  service  p^- 
nounces  no  such  thing;  and  that  therefore  Dr.  Calamy  created  a  diffi¬ 
culty,  where  the  church  had  made  none ;  there  being  ‘  some  differ¬ 
ence’  says  he,  'between  these  two  sentences - bishops,  priests, 

and  deacons,  are  three  distinct  orders  in  the  church  by  divine  appqinU 

jiicnt _ and - from  the  apostles'  time  there  have  been  in  Christ  s 

church,  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons.” - “The  same  distinction, 

says  Dr.  White,  “  is  accurately  drawn  and  fully  proved  by  Stillmg- 
fleet  in  the  Irenicum.”  Ib.  p.  22,  and  note. 

“  Now,”  continues  Dr.  White,  “  if  the  form  of  church  government 
rest  on  no  other  foundation,  than  ancient  and  apostolical  practice,  it 
is  humbly  submitted  to  consideration,  whether  Episcopalians  will  not 
be  thought  scarcely  deserving  the  name  of  Christians,  should  they, 

rather  than  consent  to  a  temporary  deviation,  abandon  every  ordinance 

of  positive  and  divine  appointment.”  Ib.  .  ,  ,  i  ivr 

‘‘'The  reader  will  please  to  observe,  that,  at  the  period  when  the  Me¬ 
thodist  Episcopal  Church  was  organized,  if  we  had  not  acted  inde¬ 
pendently  of  the  alleged  apostolical  succession,  we  must  necessarily, 
for  a  lonor  time  at  all  events,  have  abandoned  ordinances  of  positive 
and  divine  appointment.  Mr.  Wesley,  also,  as  it  had  been  proposed  to 
desire  the  English  bishops  to  ordain  part  of  our  preachers  lor  Ameri¬ 
ca  expressly  states,  I.  “  I  desired  the  bishop  of  London  to  ordain  one 
only,  but  could  not  prevail.  2.  If  they  consented,  we  know  the  slow^ 


mss  of  tlieii*  proceeding;  but  the  matter  admits  of  no  delay.”  Di', 
White  was  of  the  same  opinion,  in  relation  to  the  Episcopal  churches ; 
and  was  in  favour  of  carrying  his  plan  of  ordination,  “without  waiting 
for  the  Episcopal  succession,”  into  “  immediate  execution.” 

“  Bishop  Hoadly  says,  the  acceptance  of  reordination  by  the  dissent¬ 
ing  ministers,  would  not  he  a  denial  of  that  rights  which  (as  they  con¬ 
ceived)  had  to  ordain.'^  Ib.  p.  23. 

The  learned  Hooker  also  admits,  that,  in  “  the  exigence  of  neceS^ 
sityf  or  “  the  necessity  of  the  present  f  Episcopal  ordination,  in  the 
line  of  succession,  is  not  indispensable.  Ecclesiastical  Polity ^  Booh 
7,  Sec.  14. 

“  Had  Mr.  Hooker,”  says  Dr.  White,  (p.  26,)  “  been  asked  to  define 
*  the  exigence  of  necessity could  he  have  imagined  any  more  urgent 
than  the  case  iii  question?” — the  case  of  the  Episcopal  churches  in 
this  country  at  that  time. — “  Or  had  he  been  inquired  of  concerning 
the  ^necessities  of  present  times.,’  could  he  have  mentioned  any  in  the 
cases  to  which  he  alludes  (those  of  Scotland  and  Geneva)  so  strongly 
pleading  for  the  liberty  he  allows,  as  those  now  existing  in  America  ?” 
— at  the  period  of  writing  and  publishing  that  pamphlet.  The  reader 
has  only  to  change  the  name,  and  the  just  and  solid  argumentation  ot 
Dr.  White,  is  as  exactly  applicable  to  the  case  of  the  Methodist  socie¬ 
ties  in  America,  at  that  period,  as  to  “the  case  of  the  Episcopal 
churches.” 

“  What  necessity  was  there,”  continues  Dr.  White,  “  of  the  ‘  re¬ 
formed  churches  abroad’  equal  to  ours?  Is  not  an  immediate  imita^ 
tion  of  the  ancient  usage  ‘  impracticable  ?'  Would  not  such  a  plan  as 
has  been  proposed,”  (viz.  ordination  by  a  clergyman  chosen  as  a  per¬ 
manent  president,  in  conjunction  with  others  appointed  by  the  body,) 
“  be  conforming,  as  far  as  circumstances  allow,  to  our  ideas  of  ‘  the 
apostolic  model  V  ”  Ib.  p.  27. 

After  quoting  archbishops  Usher  and  Cranmer,  with  the  highest 
eulogies,  in  support  of  this  plan,  Dr.  White  thus  concludes  the 
argument. 

“  On  the  credit  of  the  preceding  names,  the  author  rests  this  the 
last  part  of  his  subject ;  and  if  his  sentiments  should  meet  with  an  un¬ 
favourable  reception,  he  will  find  no  small  consolation  from  being  in  a 

company  so  respectable.”  Ib.  p.  29. - So  say  we ;  especially  since 

we  have  now  added  the  name  of  Dr.  White.  More  than  forty  years 
have  elapsed  since  the  publication  of  that  pamphlet,  yet  we  are  not 
aware  that  it  has  ever  been  retracted.  If  it  had  been,  we  presume  that 
some  notice  would  have  been  given  of  it  in  the  new  edition  just  pul> 
lished,  in  the  life  time  of  the  bishop,  and  at  the  place  of  his  own  resi¬ 
dence.  And,  in  any  case,  we  might  well  say  of  this  production,  as 
Dr.  White  so  appositely  remarked  of  Stillingfleet’s  Irenicum ;  —'it 
would  be  “  easier  retracted  than  refuted.” 


Section  III. — Wesley’s  Opinion. 

“As  to  my  own  judgment,”  says  Mr.  Wesley,  “I  still  believe  the 
episcopal  form  of  church  government  to  be  scriptural  and  apostolical, 
I  mean,  well  agreeing  with  the  practice  and  writings  of  the  apostles. 


But  that  it  is  iirescribed  in  Scripture,  I  do  not  believe.  This  opinion,- 
which  I  once  zealously  espoused,  I  have  been  heartily  ashamed  of,, 
uver  since  I  read  bishop  Stillingfleet’s  Irenicum.  I  think  he  has  un¬ 
answerably  proved,  that  neither  Christ  nor  his  apostles  prescribe  any 
particular  form  of  church  government;  and  that  the  plea  divine 
right  for  diocesan  episcopacy,  was  never  heard  of  in  the  primitive 
church.”  Wesley’s  Works,  London  edition,  1813,  vol.  xvi,  p.  26. 

So  far  as  the  judgment  of  Mr.  Wesley  is  concerned,  then,  it  is,  on 
the  one  hand,  decidedly  in  favour  of  “  the  episcopal  form  of  church 
government and,  on  the  other,  as  decidedly  against  the  high  churcli 

pretensions.  .  .  ,  •  ,  i 

The  above  extract  will  also  serve  to  show  the  opinion  which  that 
great  master  of  logic  entertained  of  Stillingfleet’s  Irenicum. 


Section  IV. — Ordination. 

With  the  preceding  principles  and  authorities  before  ns,  it  only 
remains  to  consider  the  origin  and  force  of  ordination^  and  we  shall 
then  be  prepared  to  enter  into  an  examination  of  the  original  organi¬ 
zation  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

Their  custom  of  ordination,”  says  Dr.  Stillingfleet,  was  evidently 
taken  up  by  the  Christians  from  a  correspondency  to  the  synagogue. 

_ That  under  the  synagogue  was  done  by  laying  on  of  hands. — -- 

A  twofold  use  I  find  of  this  symbolical  rite,  beside  the  solemn  desig¬ 
nation  of  the  person  on  whom  the  hands  are  laid.  The/rsr  is  to  de¬ 
note  the  delivery  of  the  person  or  thing  thus  laid  hands  upon,  for  the 
right,  use,  and  peculiar  service  of  God. — The  second  end  of  the 
laying  on  of  hands,  was  the  solemn  invocation  of  the  Divine  presence 
and  assistance  to  be  upon  and  with  the  person  upon  whom  the  hands 
were  thus  laid.— Thence  in  all  solemn  prayers,  wherein  any  person 
was  particularly  designed,  they  made  use  of  this  custom  of  irnposition  of 
hands.  From  which  custom  Augustine  speaks.  Quid  aliud  est  ma- 
nuum  impositio  nisi  oratio  super  hominem  ?'!  [what  is  imposition  of 
hands  but  prayer  over  a  man  ?]  “  Thence  when  Jacob  prayed  over 

Joseph’s  children,  he  laid  his  hands  upon  them ;  so  when  Moses 
'  prayed  over  Joshua.  The  practice  likewise  our  Saviour  used  in 
blessing  children,  healing  the  sick,  and  the  apostles  in  conferring  the 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  from  thence  it  was  conveyed  into  the 
practice  of  the  primitive  church,  who  used  it  in  any  more  solemn  invo¬ 
cation  of  the  name  of  God  in  behalf  of  any  particular  persons.— But 
the  most  solemn  and  peculiar  use  of  this  imposition  of  hands  among 
the  Jews,  was  in  the  designing  of  any  persons  for  any  public  employ¬ 
ment  among  them.  Not  as  though  the  bare  imposition  of  hands  did 

confer  any  power  upon  the  person - -but  with  that  ceremony  they 

joined  those  words  whereby  they  did  confer  that  authority  upon  them. 

_ This  custom  being  so  generally  in  use  among  the  Jews  in  the 

lime  when  the  apostles  were  sent  forth  with  authority  for  gathering 
and  settling  the  churches,  we  find  them  accordingly  making  use  of 
this,  according  to  the  former  practice,  either  in  any  more  solemn  invo¬ 
cation  of  the  presence  of  God  upon  any  persons,  or  designation  and 
appointing  them  for  any  peculiar  service  or  function.  For  we  have  nr* 


ATioLiiid  to  think  that  the  apostles  had  Viny  peculiar  command  tor  laying 
on  their  hands  upon  persons  in  prayer  over  thenij  or  ordination  of  them. 
But  the  thing  itself  being  enjoined  them,  viz.  the  setting  apart  some 
persons  for  the  peculiar  work  of  attendance  upon  the  necessities  of  the 
churches  by  them  planted,  they  took  up  and  made  use  of  a  laudable 
rite  and  custom,  then  in  use  upon  such  occasions.  And  so  we  find  the 
apostles  using  it  in  the  solemn  designation  of  some  persons  to  the 

office  of  deacons  : - afterwards  upon  an  occasion  not  heard  of  in  the 

synagogue, — for  the  conferring  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  But 
although  the  occasion  was  extraordinary,  yet  the  use  of  that  rite  in  it 
was  very  suitable,  inasmuch  as  those  gifts  did  so  much  answer  to  the 
{Shckinah)  and  the  lyiipn  nn”  [the  Holy  Spirit]  which 
the  Jews  conceived  did  rest  upon  those  who  were  so  ordained  by 
imposition  of  hands.  The  next  time  we  meet  with  this  rite  was 
upon  a  peculiar  designation  to  a  particular  service  of  persons  already 
appointed  by  God  for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  which  is  of  Paul  and 
Barnabas  by  the  prophets  and  teachers  at  Antioch  ;  whereby  God  doth 
set  forth  the  use  of  that  rite  of  ordination  to  the  Christian  churches.” 
Iren.  pp.  264-271. 

“  Ordination  is  the  solemn  setting  apart  of  a  person  to  some  public 
church  office.”  Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines ;  examined  and 
approved  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland.— Neal 
— vol.  V,  p.  357 — appendix. 

Mr.  M‘Caine  has  taken  pains  to  show  that  the  validity  of  Presby¬ 
terian  ordination  was  established  by  Mr.  Wesley,  and  is  the  principle 
of  the  ordination  of  the  British  Conference.  But  who  ever  denied 
•this  ?  Is  it  not  expressly  and  fully  declared  in  our  Book  of  Discipline, 
in  answer  to  the  following  question ; — “  If  by  death,  expulsion,  or 
otherwise,  there  be  no  bishop  remaining  in  our  church,  what  shall 
we  do?” 

The  answer  is ; - “  The  General  Conference  shall  elect  a  bishop  ; 

and  the  elders,  or  any  three  of  them,  who  shall  he  appointed  by  the  Ge¬ 
neral  Conference  for  that  purpose,  shall  ordain  him,  according  to  our 
form  of  ordination.”  Chap.  1,  sec.  4,  quest.  2.  And  this  answer 
shows  both  the  good  sense  of  those  who  framed  it,  and  their  acquaint¬ 
ance  with  ancient  ecclesiastical  usage.  For,  as  Stillingfleet  above 
quoted,  says,  “Great  probability  there  is  that  where  churches  were 
planted  by  presbyters,”  (as  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was,) 
“  upon  the  increase  of  churches  and  presbyters,  they  did,  from  among 

themselves,  choose  one  to  be  as  the  bishop  over  them. - For  we  no 

where  read  in  those  early  plantations  of  churches,  that  where  there 
7vci'e  presbyters  already,  they  sent  to  other  churches  to  desire  Episco¬ 
pal  ordination  from  them^ - It  is  also  in  exact  accordance  with 

the  practice  of  the  church  of  Alexandria,  which  would  not  suffer  the 
interference  of  foreign  churches  in  consecrating  their  bishops,  and 
of  which  the  patriarch  Eutychius,  as  quoted  by  Stillingfleet,  “  ex- 
])ressly  affirms,  that  the  twelve  presbyters  constituted  by  Mark,  upon 
the  vacancy  of  the  see,  did  choose  out  of  their  number  one  to  be  head 
over  the  rest,  and  the  other  eleven  did  lay  their  hands  upon  him,  and 
blessed  him,  and  made  him  patriarch.” 

When  Mr,  M‘Caine  asserts  that  “  neither  are  the  ordinations 


^xt.ioh  lie”  (®r.  Wesley)  “conferred,  viewed  by  writers  among  tlie 

Enfflish  Methodists - as  favouring  our  title  of  Episcopacy,  he  stops 

•.hon  of  the  phraseology  used  by  the  very  writers  whom  he  quotes. 
Treir  language  is-“  He”  [Mr.  Wesley]  “gave  up  Episcopal  ordina^u 
«s  understood  by  high  churchmen."  So  do  we.  And  so  does  our 
cipline,  clearly  and  unequivocally. 

Section  V. — Ordination  of  Dr.  CoJce. 

Having  thus  cleared  our  way,  we  shall  now  take  up  the  ordination 

”  says  Mr.  M‘Caine,  “  Mr.  Wesley  ordained  Dr.  Coke  a  bishop 
in  the’  common  acceptation  of  that  term,  then  did  he  create  a  church 
officer  greater  than  himself,  and  of  consequence  he  brought  himself 
into  su1)iection  to  Dr.  Coke,  by  making  the  doctor  his  supeiior. 
Attain  •  ‘‘  If  the  doctor  was  constituted  a  bishop”  [“  m  the  common 
acceptation  of  that  termf  is  here  dropped]  “  he  was  raised  to  a  ran  v 
abo^e  apres^ter,  and  invested  with  superior  powers.  I"  ^hat  case  he 

that  was^sent  was  greater  than  he  that  sent  him  - and  then,  Mr. 

We‘»lev  who  was  only  a  presbyter,  and  consequently 
bishop^  assumed  the  prerogative  to  send  his  superior  to  do  a  work 
Km^  which  he  himsdf  could  not  go  to  do.’  -And  again If 
Ihe  doctor  by  the  imposition  of  Mr,  Wesley’s  hands,  is  created  a  bishop 
then  the  obLction  of  the  bishop  of  Norwich  lies  m 
1  pre^yter^can  ordain  a  bishop,  then  the  greater  is  blessed  of  the 

wi’^ve  already  seen  what  Mr.  M‘Caine  represents  to  be  “the 
common  acceptation’’  of  the  term  bishops,  (which,  by  the  way,  ''"e 
liave  shown  is  not  the  common  acceptation,)  viz.  an  order  of  ministers 
distinct  from  presbyters  by  divine  appointment,  to  whoin  the  power  of 
^nation  "Jlserved  by  the  same  appointment,  and  is  the  chief  mark 
of  their  distinction  and  in  whom,  as  successors  of  the  apostles,  is 
vested  the  exclusive  right  of  granting  the  divine  commission  to  execute 
the  ministerial  office.— See  History  and  Mystery,  pp.  9  10. 

Now  if  Mr  Wesley  ordained  Dr.  Coke  in  no  such  sense,  */  h® 
pretended  to  no  such  thing  ;-if  neither  our 

Fniscooal  Church,  have  ever  pretended  to  any  such  thing,  w  Hat  inen . 
Why  tLn  it  follows  that  all  the  smart  sayings  on  this  transaction, 
whiL  tve  been  repeated  and  copied  from  my  Lord  Bishop  of  Nor 
wich  down  to  Mr.  M‘Caine,  are  wholly  wide  of 
shaken  both  from  Mr.  Wesley  and  from  us,  as  The  lion  shake 

air  the  mists  shed  on  his  mane.” - They  may  serve  to  mislead  the 

ignorant  and  such  as  may  be  captivated  by  sound,  more  than  by  seiisc. 
But  as  to  the  argument  they  are  perfectly  nugatory.  If, 
Whitehead  and  Mr.  Moore,  Mr.  Wesley’s  position  be  true,  that  bishops 
^d  Syters  are  the  same  order,  the  bishop  of  Norwich  should  have 
fcstCrC.  this  position,  if  he  could,  to  have  established  his  own. 

.  one  of  Mr  M‘^s  auOiontic. 


But  says  Mr.  M^Caine,  as  Mr.  Wesley  and  Dr.  Coke  were  of  tlie 
same  order, — the  doctor  had  as  good  a  clerical  right  to  ordain  Mr. 

Wesley  a  bishop,  as  Mr.  Wesley  had  to  ordain  the  doctor.” - As 

good  a  clerical  right ; - Mr.  M‘Caine  seems  to  have  felt  here  that 

his  argument  was  lame.  He  knows  well  that  the  true  question  is  not 
as  to  the  mere  clerical  power  of  ordination,  abstractly  ;  but  whether 
in  the  circumstances  then  existing,  as  to  acknowledged 
and  the  exigency  of  the  times,  Dr.  Coke,  had  as  good  a  right  to  ordain 
and  send  Mr.  Wesley  to  superintend  the  American  Methodists,  as  Mr. 
Wesley  had  to  summon  a  council,  and  to  ordain  and  send  him.  And 
whether  it  was  so  regarded  by  the  Methodists  of  that  day,  either  in 
Europe,  or  in  America. 


The  Methodist  societies  in  America,  although  under  the  spiritual  ^ 
direction  of  the  Rev.  John  Wesley  and  his  assistants,  whom,  under  f 
God  they  regarded  as  their  father  and  founder,  yet,  previously  to  the  ^ 
revolutionary  war,  were  religious  societies  within  the  Church  of  Eng¬ 
land,  without  any  provision  among  themselves  for  the  administration  of 
the  ordinances.  F rom  that  church  they  were  separated ,  let  it  be  carefully 
observed,  not  by  any  schism,  ox  faction,  or  any  species  of  misconduct 
on  their  part ;  but  by  the  acts  of  Providence,  and  by  circumstances 
wholly  beyond  their  control.  The  church  of  England  had  ceased  to 
exist  in  America,  and  the  Methodists  here  were  absolutely  compelled 
either  to  provide  for  themselves,  or  to  live  in  neglect  of  the  positive 
ordinances  of  Christ.  Their  case  was  clearly  that  of  “  the  exigence  ' 
of  necessity,”  agreeably  to  Hooker  himself ;  and  most  undeniably  so 
agreeably  to  the  principles  then  advocated  by  Dr.  White.  Our  socie¬ 
ties  had  suffered  long,  as  sheep  without  shepherds.  They  had  endured 
the  privation  of  the  ordinances  till  the  patience  of  many  had  been  ex¬ 
hausted,  and  a  serious  disunion  was  threatened  ;  if  not  dissolution.  A 
portion  of  the  preachers  and  societies  in  the  south  had  resolved  on 
measures  for  the  administration  of  the  ordinances  among  themselves. 
This  step  was  strenuously  resisted  by  the  conference  which  met  in 
Baltimore  in  1780.  That  conference  unanimously  disapproved  of  the 
measures  adopted  by  their  brethren  in  Virginia,  and  resolved  that 
they  would  not  regard  them  as  Methodists  in  connexion  with  Mr. 
Wesley,  till  they  came  back ;  and  Francis  Asbury,  Freeborn  Garrett- 
son,  and  Wm.  Watters,  were  appointed  a  committee  to  attend  the 
Virginia  conference,  and  inform  them  of  these  proceedings,  and  re¬ 
ceive  their  answer.  On  that  occasion,  Mr.  Asbury  exerted  his  utmost 
influence  to  effect  a  reunion,  and,  in  conjunction  with  his  colleagues, 
happily  succeeded.  The  proposal  by  which  it  was  accomplished,  after 
much  discussion  and  distress,  originated  with  him.  (See  Mr.  Snethen’s 
reply  to  J.  O’Kelly,  p.  8,  and  Lee’s  History,  p.  73.)*  '  It  was,  that 
they  should  consent  to  bear  their  privations  yet  longer  to  write  to 
Mr.  Wesley  and  lay  their  situation  before  him,  and  take  his  advice,  j 

*  Mr.  Watters  says  this  proposal  was  made  “  by  one  of  their  own  party.”  This 
apparent  discrepancy  is  explained  by  Mr.  Snethen  in  his  “  Answer  to  J.  O’Kelly’s 
vindication.” — Mr.  Asbury  originally  made  the  proposal  to  John  Dickins,  to 
whom  Mr.  Watters  alludes.  John  Dickins  reduced  it  to'  writing  and  proposed  it  to 
ihe  confer  ence= 


This  proposal  was  agreed  to ; — a  division  was  prevented ;  a  happy 
union  was  restored;  and  the  preachers  departed  with  thankful  hearts, 
to  persuade  the  people  to  unite  with  them  in  longer  forbearance. 

Yet  it  w^as  not  till  several  years  after  this ; — not  till  the  church  of 
England  in  America  was  confessedly  extinct  by  the  acknowledgment 
of  our  independence,  and  all  hope  of  supplies  from  that  quarter,  in 
any  reasonable  time,  if  ever,  had  utterly  failed,  that  Mr.  Wesley  re¬ 
solved  on  the  adoption  of  the  measures  which,  from  his  relation  to  the 
Methodists  (under  the  true  Head  of  the  church,)  and  their  urgent 
solicitations,  he  had  long  before  believed  himself  fully  authorized  to 
adopt ;  but  which,  for  peace^  sahe,  he  had  many  years  forborne.  On 
the  same  principle,  ybrj>eace’  sake,  he  had  desired  the  bishop  of  Lon¬ 
don  to  ordain  only  one  preacher  for  America,  but  could  not  prevail. 
Driven  to  this  extremity,  with  all  his  societies  and  preachers  in  Ame¬ 
rica,  he  summoned  a  council  of  grave  and  pious  presbyters.  These 
were,  in  conjunction  with  him,  our  body  of  presbyters ,  and  with  their 
advice  he  acted.  The  venerable  Fletcher  was  one  of  the  council, 
though  not  present  at  the  subsequent  ordinations.  Mr.  Wesley’s 
scruples  were  now  ended,  and  he  resolved,  with  the  aid  of  other 
presbyters,  to  exercise  that  authority  to  which  he  believed  himself 
called  by  the  providence  of  God,  and  by  the  ^^necessities  of  the  times'^ 

• — Now,  if  the  episcopacy  of  the  church  of  England,  (and  consequently 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country  ,)  rest  on  no  other 
foundation  than  ancient  and  apostolic  practice,  we  humbly  submit,  (in 
language  similar  to  that  of  bishop  White  on  another  occasion,)  vvhether 
Methodists  would  scarcely  have  been  deserving  the  name  of  Christians, 
if  rather  than  consent  to  a  temporary  (or  even  to  a  permanent)  devia¬ 
tion  from  that  line  of  Episcopacy,  they  had  abandoned  every  ordi¬ 
nance  of  positive  and  divine  appointment. 

Bishop  White  states,  as  quoted  by  Mr.  M^Caine,  that  a  union  of  the 
Methodists  in  this  country  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  was 
proposed  by  Dr.  Coke  in  1791,  the  terms  of  which  on  the  doctor’s 
part,  as  stated  by  bishop  White,  all  will  admit,  were  sufficiently  humble. 
Why  did  that  proposal  fail?  It  is  stated,  on  the  same  authority,  that  it 
failed  in  consequence  of  the  proceedings  of  the  convention  of  the  Pro¬ 
testant  Episcopal  Church,  before  whom  the  subject  was  laid  in  1792. 
The  Rev.  Dr.  Wyatt  of  Baltimore  published,  in  1820,  a  similar  state¬ 
ment.  If  this  statement  be  correct,  then  the  responsibility  for  the 
rendering  of  our  deviation  from  that  line  of  Episcopacy  permanent, 
rests  on  them.  The  proposed  union  by  which  our  “  temporary  devia¬ 
tion”  might  have  been  cured,  according  to  Dr.  White’s  plan  of  condi¬ 
tional  oxciindXions,  on  the  principle  of  baptisms,  was  rejected 

by  them.  Is  it  then,  for  them  now  to  reproach  us  with  this  deviation, 
which  had  been  adopted,  clearly,  in  the  ‘‘  exigence  of  necessity,”  and 
which  they,  as  much  as  in  them  laid,  thus  contributed  to  render  per¬ 
manent.  This  would  be  both  cruel  and  unchristian.  It  is  not,  we 
think,  in  the  pyower  of  the  acutest  disputant  to  impugn  the  ground  on 
which  we  stand  without  equally  impugning  that  assumed  by  Dr.  White, 
in  “  The  case  of  the  Episcopal  churches  considered.”  Nor  to  refute 
this,  without  refuting  that.  We  shall  have  occasion  to  advert  again  to 


X.  23 

the  statement  respecting  Dr.  Coke’s  proposals  to  bishop  White,  and 
shall  only  add  here,  that,  from  what  we  have  said,  it  must  plainly 
appear  that  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
affords  no  colour  of  pretext  or  of  countenance,  to  any  leaders  or 
authors  of  schism,  faction,  disorganization,  or  disunion.  The  pro¬ 
ceedings  of  “  our  fathers”  partook  of  no  such  character.  Nor  can  tlie 
^  precedent  of  their  example  be  pleaded  by  the  instigators,  or  abettofi, 

of  any  such  disorders. 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  letters  testimonial  delivered  by  Mr. 
Wesley  to  Dr.  Coke,  after  his  ordination,  agreeably  to  the  advice  of 
Mr.  Fletcher.  It  was  taken  by  Mr.  Drew,  from  the  original,  in  Mr. 
Wesley’s  own  hand  writing,  preserved  among  the  papers  of  Dr. 
Coke. 

To  all  to  whom  these  presents  shall  come,  John  Wesley,  late  fel¬ 
low  of  Lincoln  collegje  in  Oxford,  presbyter  of  the  church  of  England, 
sendeth  greeting. 

“  Whereas  many  of  the  people  in  the  southern  provinces  of  North 
America,  who  desire  to  continue  under  my  care,  and  still  adhere  to 
the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  church  of  England,  are  greatly  dis¬ 
tressed  for  want  of  ministers  to  administer  the  sacraments  of  baptism 
and  the  Lord’s  supper,  according  to  the  usage  of  the  same  church : 
and  whereas  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  other  way  of  supplying 
them  with  ministers — 

“  Know  all  men,  that  I,  John  Wesley,  think  myself  to  be  provi¬ 
dentially  called  at  this  time  to  set  apart  some  persons  for  the  work  of 
the  ministry  in  America.  And  therefore,  under  the  protection  ot 
Almighty  God,  and  with  a  single  eye  to  his  glory,  I  have  this  day  set 
apart  as  a  superintendent,  by  the  imposition  of  my  hands  and  prayer, 
(being  assisted  by  other  ordained  ministers,)  Thomas  Coke,  doctor  of 
civil  law,  a  presbyter  of  the  church  of  England,  and  a  man  whom  I 
judge  to  be  well  qualified  for  that  great  work.  And  I  do  hereby 
recommend  him  to  all  whom  it  may  concern,  as  a  fit  person  to  preside 
over  the  flock  of  Christ.  In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set 
my  hand  and  seal,  this  second  day  of  September,  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord,  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  eighty  four. 

“  John  Wesley.” 

This  document  leads  us  to  remark ;  1.  Mr.  M'Caine  says,  (p.  21,) 
it  is  not  a  letter  “  of  ordination,”  but  of  “  appointment.”— Why  ?  Be¬ 
cause  “  the  term  ‘  ordination’  is  not  found  in  it.”  And  is  the  term 

appointment”  found  in  it  ?  If  it  be  good  logic  that  because  the  term 
“  ordination”  is  not  found  in  it,  therefore  it  is  not  a  letter  of  ordina¬ 
tion  ;  surely  it  is  equally  so  that  because  the  term  “  appointment’’  is 
not  found  in  it,  therefore  it  is  not  a  letter  of  appointment.  According 
to  this  logic,  it  may  be  questioned  whether  Mr.  M‘Caine  himself  has 
ever  been  either  ordained^  or  appointed^  an  elder ;  for  we  suspect  that 
^  neither  the  term  ordained,  or  appointed,  will  be  found  in  his  credeit^ 

tials.  On  Mr.  M‘Caine’s  principles  of  verbality,  this  document  should 
be  called  a  letter  of  “  set  apart  r  for  these  are  the  words  used  by  Mr. 


W 


’J4 

Wesley.  This  is  a  specimen  of  Mr.  Caine’s  logic  in  the  management 
of  documents.  A  similar  one  will  be  found  when  we  come  to  the  term 
bishop. 

2.  If  this  were  not  an  ordination,  we  should  be  glad  to  be  informed 
what  constitutes  one.  It  was  performed  as  ordinations  usually  are ; — 
with  the  usual  solemnities ; — by  “  imposition  of  hands  and  prayer 
with  the  assistance  of  “  other  ordained  ministers and  “  under  the 
protection  of  Almighty  God.”  If  it  was  not  intended  as  an  ordination, 
it  was  certainly  a  very  solemn  mockery  ; — a  trifling  with  sacred  things, 
to  charge  Mr.  Wesley  with  which  would  be  loading  his  memory  with 
‘‘'obloquy”  indeed. 

3.  With  what  office  did  Mr.  Wesley,  by  these  solemnities,  and  by 
this  instrument,  intend  to  invest  Dr.  Coke  ?  Not  with  the  Episcopal 
office,  says  Mr.  M‘Caine.  Why  ? — Because  the  term  “Episcopal”  was 
not  used.  Let  us  take  the  words  then  that  were  used.  Dr.  Coke,  who 
v/as  already  a  presbyter,  was  “  set  apart”  by  Mr.  Wesley,  assisted  by 
other  presbyters,  “  as  a  superintendenf' — “  to  preside  over  the  jiock  of 
Christ^''  or,  as  he  expressed  it  in  his  letter  “  to  Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  Asbu- 
ry,”  &c, — dated  a  few  days  subsequently,  “  over  our  brethren  in  North 

America f - to  superintend,  and  preside  over,  the  whole  body  of 

the  Methodist  preachers  on  this  continent,  with  hundreds,  if  not  thou¬ 
sands,  of  congregations,  and  tens  of  thousands  of  members  : — to  ordain 
other  ministers,  and  to  exercise  all  the  powers  usually  considered 
Episcopal.  Indeed  the  allegation  has  usually  been,  that  the  powers 
with  which  our  superintendents  were  confessedly  invested  from  the 
commencement^ — and  with  Mr.  Weslefs  sanction,  were  too  great,  even 
for  an  Episcopacy.  And  will  Mr.  M‘Caine,  then,  yet  contend,  that 
Mr.  Wesley  did  not  intend  that  the  office  of  our  general  superintend¬ 
ents  in  America  should  be  an  Episcopal  office  'mfact,  though  under 
the  title  of  superintendents?  Will  he  so  far  jeopard  his  reputation 
both  for  understanding,  and  for  candour  ?  To  waste  time  on  such  a 
question  would  really  seem  to  us  to.be  trifling  both  with  ourselves,  and 
with  our  readers. 

4.  Mr.  Wesley  says  that  those  who  desired  his  advice  and  help, 
“  adhered  to  the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  church  of  England,” — 
and  were  “  greatly  distressed  for  w^ant  of  ministers  to  administer  the 

sacraments - according  to  the  usage  of  the  same  church  V — Were 

not  the  “discipline”  and  the  “usage”  of  that  church  Episcopal? 
And  does  not  Mr.  Wesley,  in  this  instrument,  plainly  declare  his 
intention  to  follow  that  discipline  and  usage,  so  far  as  he  could  with¬ 
out  entangling  us  again  with  the  English  hierarchy  ? 

Mr.  M‘Caine,  indeed,  would  make  out,  that  Mr.  Wesley’s  inten¬ 
tion  was  that  we  should  continue  connected  with  the  church  of  Eng¬ 
land.  But  the  contrary  is  plain.  The  wide  difference  between  the 
case  of  the  Methodist  societies  in  England,  and  those  in  this  country, 
in  consequence  of  the  revolutionary  w^ar,  Mr.  Wesley  himself  clearly 
defines.  “  The  case,”  he  says,  “  is  wndely  different  between  England 

and  North  America. - Our  American  brethren  are  now  totally  dis^ 

entangled - from  the  English  hierarchy - we  dare  not  entangle 

tfcem  again. - ^They  are  now  at  full  liberty  simply  to  follow  the 


{Scriptures  and  the  primitive  church.  And  we  judge  it  heSt  that  their 

should  stand  fast  in  that  liberty 

5.  Mr.  Wesley,  in  this  document,  assigns  as  one  of  the  grounds  of  I 
his  proceeding,  precisely  that  basis  of  “  the  exigence  of  necessity,”  in  \ 
which  both  the  propriety  and  the  duty  of  a  similar  proceeding,  on  the 
part  of  “  the  Episcopal  churches,”  even  at  an  earlier  period,  had  been 

so  ably  advocated  by  Dr.  White.  “  And  whereas,”  he  says,  “there 
does  not  appear  to  be  any  other  way  of  supplying  them  with  minis-  ' 

ters.” - He  had,  for  peace’  sake,  previously  applied  to  the  bishop  of 

London  to  ordain  one  only,  but  could  not  prevail.  And  if  the  English  i 
bishops  would  even  have  consented,  he  knew  the  slowness  of  their  * 
proceedings ;  and  the  matter  admitted  of  no  delay.* 

6.  If  the  fuller  powers  f  which  Mr.  Wesley  desired  Dr.  Coke  to 
meet  him  in  Bristol  to  receive,  were  not  Episcopal  in  fact^  what  were 
they  1  Dr.  Coke  was  already  a  presbyter ;  and  as  to  the  mere  “  ap¬ 
pointing”  of  superintendents  in  a  lower  sense,  to  take  charge  of  socie¬ 
ties  as  Mr.  Wesley’s  assistants,  it  would  have  been  a  perfect  novelty  in 
Methodism  to  have  used  such  ceremonies  barely  for  that  purpose.  Mr. 
Rankin  and  Mr.  Asbury  had  both  been  superintendents  in  America, 
in  this  sense,  as  Mr.  Wesley’s  assistants,  without  any  such  ceremonies. 
And,  as  a  conclusive  argument  against  such  a  view  of  this  transaction, 
we  add, — if  Mr.  Wesley,  by  setting  apart  Dr.  Coke,  and  investing  him 
with  “  fuller  powers,”  meant  barely  to  “  appoint”  him  a  superintend¬ 
ent,  as  his  assistant,  in  the  sense  in  which  he  had  ordinarily  used  this 
term,  then  it  would  have  been  utterly  inconsistent  with  his  known 
principle  to  have  associated  Mr.  Creighton,  Mr.  Whatcoat,  and  Mr. 
Vasey,  with  him,  in  making  the  appointment. 

7.  If  Mr.  Wesley’s  preferring  the  title  “  superintendent,”  proves 
that  Dr.  Coke,  under  that  title,  was  not  intended  by  Mr.  Wesley  to  be 
a  bishop  in  fact,  it  equally  follows  that  his  preferring  the  title  “  elder” 
proves  that  he  did  not  intend  Mr.  Whatcoat  and  Mr.  Vasey  to  be 
priests,  or  presbyters,  in  fact.  The  argument  is  as  good  in  the  one 
case  as  in  the  other.  The  forms  of  ordination  prepared  for  us  by  Mr- 
Wesley,  for  setting  apart  our  superintendents  and  elders,  as  we  shall 
hereafter  shov ,  were  merely  an  abridgment  of  the  forms  of  the  church 

*  In  1783,  and  we  think  earlier,  Dr.  White  maintained  that  this  “exigence  of 
necessity”  then  existed  in  “  the  Episcopal  churches.”  Yet  they  did  not  succeed  in 
obtaining  ordination  from  the  English  bishops  till  1787,  and  even  then  not  until  it  : 
was  authorized  by  an  act  of  parliament.  Dr.  Seabury  had  previously  succeeded 
in  obtaining  ordination  from  the  non-juring  bishops  of  Scotland,  though  he  could 
not  from  the  English  bishops.  But  even  this  was  not  till  after  the  ordination  of 
Dr.  Coke  as  a  general  superintendent.  W’hen  Dr.  White  and  Dr.  Prevost  went  to 
England,  after  the  revolution,  to  obtain  Episcopal  ordination,  the  archbishop  of 
Canterbury  was  of  opinion  that  no  English  bishop  could  ordain  them  unless  they 
took  the  oath  of  allegiance.  Mr.  Southey  says  they  then  applied  for  advice  and 
assistance  to  Dr.  Franklin,  who  was  then  our  minister  in  France.  He  consulted  a 
French  clergyman,  and  found  that  they  could  not  be  ordained  in  France,  unless 
they  vowed  obedience  to  the  archbishop  of  Paris  ;  and  the  pope’s  nuncio,  whom 
he  consulted  also,  informed  him  that  the  Romish  bishop  in  America  could  not 
lay  hands  on  them  unless  they  turned  Catholics.  Franklin  therefore  advised 
them,  either  that  the  Episcopalian  clergy  in  America  should  become  Presbyterians ; 

or  that  they  should  elect  a  bishop  for  themselves. - So  true  it  was,  as  Mr.  Wesley 

said,  he  knew  the  slowness  and  the  entanglingness  of  their  proceedings  j  and  such 
was  Franklin’s  advice  in  the  case. 


o^'  England  for  setting  apart  bishops  and  priests.  And  as  he  substi- 
.  tuted  the  term  superintendent  for  bishop,  so  he  also  substituted  the 

/term  elder  for  priest ; — clearly  intending  substantially  the  same  eccle¬ 
siastical  officers,  in  each  case ;  but  not  the  same  titles. 

8.  That  in  such  an  “  exigence  of  necessity”  as  then  existed,  and  at 
j  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopl  Church,  it  was  admissible 
i  for  a  body  of  presbyters  to  constitute  a  bishop  in  fact^  in  our  accepta- 
'  tion  of  the  term,  with  the  title  of  superintendent,  president,  inspector, 
.  or  overseer,  as  they  judged  best,  we  have  already  supported  by  abun- 
\  dant  evidence. 

’  9.  When  lord  King  lays  it  down  as  the  primitive  usage  that  there 

was  “  but  one  supreme  bishop  in  a  place,”  he  uses  the  term  expressly 
in  relation  to  “  the  proper  pastor  or  minister  of  a  parish,  having  care 
of  the  souls  of  that  church,  or  parish;”  though  in  some  cases  there 
were  other  ministers  subordinately  connected  with  him,  and  assisting 
him.  In  this  sense  we  admit  that  there  ought  to  be  but  one  bishop 
or  minister  having  the  pastoral  charge,  in  one  place.  And  this  is  our 
usage.  But  that  in  the  apostles’  times  there  were  individuals  travel¬ 
ling  extensively  as  superintendents,  bishops,  inspectors,  or  overseers, 
in  a  larger  sphere,  and  setting  in  order  the  things  that  were  wanting 
in  multitudes  of  churches,  is  undeniable.  Whether  such  church  offi¬ 
cers  were  extraordinary^  or  no,  as  Stillingfleet  says,  we  now  dispute 
not  But  whether  they  be  repugnant  to  the  gospel  or  no.  Which, 
from  their  practice,  as  he  adds,  it  is  evident  that  they  are  not.  That 
what  was  extraordinary  in  the  apostolic  oversight,  and  in  that  of  Tim¬ 
othy  and  Titus,  did  cease  with  them,  may  be  admitted.  But  the  ques¬ 
tion  remains  what  was  extraordinary,  and  what  was  not.  For  surely 
not  every  practice  and  usage  of  the  apostles  was  intended  to  cease 
with  them.  For  then  the  office  of  preaching  itself  must  cease,  for  this 
^yas  their  main  office.  Besides,  by  ceasing^  may  be  meant,  either 
ceasing  as  to  its  necessity,  or  as  to  its  laiyfulness.  And  to  make  a 
thing  unlawful,  which  was  before  lawful,  there  ought  to  be  some  cx- 

fness  prohibition  of  it.  Which,  in  this  case,  we  suppose,  with  Stil- 
ingfleet,  men  will  not  easily  produce  in  the  word  of  God.  And  ad¬ 
mitting  the  lawfulness  of  our  practice  in  this  respect,  the  expediency 
and  utility  of  it  must  be  judged  by  those  whose  concern  it  is.  That 
such  an  itinerant  and  extensive  oversight  as  was  practised  by  the 
apostles,  and  by  Timothy  and  Titus,  fell  greatly  into  disuse  very 
shortly  after  their  decease,  is  true.  But  surely  it  cannot  be  con¬ 
clusively  inferred  from  this  that  it  is  unlawful  to  revive  a  similar 
superintendency  in  churches  which  may  desire  it,  and  believe  it  to 
be  both  practicable  and  useful.  Such  an  Episcopacy,  as  Mr.  Wesley 
says  of  “  the  Episcopal  form  of  church  government,”  we  believe  to  be 
both  Scriptural  and  apostolical.  We  mean,  as  he  adds,  well  agreeing 
both  with  the  practice  and  with  the  writings  of  the  apostles.” 

That  “  plain  John  Wesley,  the  fountain  of  our  Episcopal  authority,” 
should  be  “  improved  mXo  father  Wesley,”  is  made  by  Mr.  M’Caine, 
p.  53,  a  matter  of  ridicule.  But  when  he  wrote  this,  he  probably  for¬ 
got  that,  when  it  suited  his  purpose,  he  had  himself  used  the  same 
language.  “  Mr.  Wesley,”  he  says,  p.  23,  “  considered  himself,  under- 
God,  Xhfi  father  of  all  the  Methodists  in  Europe  and  America.”  Ap.d 


27 


acruni  p.  43,  when  he  wished  to  represent  it  as  odious  in  our  father? 
not  to  have  implicitly  obeyed  the  wish  of  Mr.  Wesley  on  a  particular 
occasion,  then  he  is  careful  himself  to  improve  “  plain  John  Wesley,” 
into  the  father  of  the  Methodist  people.” 

This  relation,  however,  Mr.  Wesley  did  himself  expressly  claim ; 
and  the  claim  was  recognised  by  the  whole  body  of  Methodists,  both 
in  Europe  and  in  America.  “  You,”  said  he  to  Mr.  Asbury,  “  are  the 
elder  brother  of  the  American  Methodists.  I  am,  under  God,  the 
the  father  of  the  whole  family.  Therefore  I  naturally  care  for  you  all 
in  a  manner  no  other  person  can  do.  Therefore  I,  in  a  measure,  pro¬ 
vide  for  you  all.”  And  in  the  secondary  sense  of  Theodoret,  Fregevil, 
and  Stillingfleet,  we  do  not  hesitate  to  denominate  him  the  apostle  of 
the  whole  Methodist  people,  obnoxious  as  that  term  is  to  Mr.  M’Caine ; 
and  even  to  assert,  that  he  did  in  fact,  claim,  and  exercise  Episcopal 
authority  among  them ;  and  that  both  he  and  they  believed  that  in  all 
this  he  acted  in  the  order  of  Divine  Providence. 

Mr.  Wesley  did  himself  assert  that  he  believed  himself  to  be  “  a 
Scriptural  E^i(f>co<rtog,  Episcopos,  as  much  as  any  man  in  England  or  in 
Europe.”  Moore’s  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  ii,  p.  280.  And  he  asserted 
this  with  direct  reference  to  his  “  acting  as  a  bishop  f  in  reply  to  the 
remarks  of  his  brother  Cha  rles.  If  by  Episcopos  he  did  not  mean  to  aver 
himself  a  in  fact,  and  entitled  to  “  act  as  a  bishop,”  in  our  ac¬ 

ceptation  of  the  term,then  his  reply  did  not  meet  his  brother’s  objection, 
but  was  a  mere  evasion  ; — and  one  too  shallow,  though  mantled  in  Greek , 
to  deceive,  or  to  satisfy,  so  good  a  scholar  as  his  brother  Charles. 
That  he  meant  that  he  was  an  Episcopos,  merely  in  the  sense  of  being 
the  proper  pastor  of  a  particular  congregation,  or  parish,  cannot  be : 
for  such  he  was  not. — Yet,  although  he  did  believe  himself  entitled  to 
exercise  Episcopal  authority  among  the  Methodists  ;  as  much  so  as 
any  bishop  of  the  church  of  England— in  the  church  of  England,  it 
should  be  carefully  noted  that,  for  peace’  sake,  he  refrained  from  the 
exercise  of  it,  with  respect  to  ordination,  till  imperiously  urged  to  it 
by  the  “  exigence  of  necessity  and  until,  if  he  had  refused  longer, 
he  must  have  permitted  his  numerous  societies  in  America,  who  were 
loudly  calling  on  him  for  advice  and  help,  to  live  in  the  neglect  of  im¬ 
perative  ordinances,  of  Christ’s  positive  institution.  In  any  reference 
to  the  precedent  of  Mr.  Wesley’s  example  then,  we  shall  do  him  great 
injustice  if  we  are  not  careful  always  to  combine  all  these  various  views, 
relations,  and  circumstances.  In  relation  to  the  general  church,  or 
to  the  church  of  England,  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Wesley  as  presbyters, 
were  undoubtedly  equal  in  order.  Yet  that  their  acknowledged  juris¬ 
diction,  in  relation  to  the  Methodist  societies,  was  vastly  different,  in 
Dr.  Coke’s  own  view,  and  that  he  knew  it  to  be  so  regarded  by  the 
Methodist  people,  is  manifest  from  the  following  extract  of  a  letter 
which  he  addressed  to  Mr.  Wesley  previously  to  his  coming  to 
America. 

Honoured  and  Dear  Sir,  ,  , 

The  more  maturely  I  consider  the  subject,  the  more  expedient  it 
appears  to  me,  that  the  power  of  ordaining  others”  [having  reference 
to  the  ordination  to  be  established  for  the  Methodists  in  America.] 


^  should  be  received  by  me  from  you,  by  the  imposition  of  vour 

hands ;  — - — —  an  authority  formally  received  from  you  will  (T 

am  conscious  of  it )  be  fully  admitted  by  the  people  ;  and  my  exir- 
dirf  of  ordination  without  that  formal  authority  Ly  be 

disputed,  if  there  be  any  opposition  on  any  other  account.  I  cLld 

w^ch”'!  MO  exercise  that  power  in  this  instance, 

Ton  with  forth  O"  ^  but  God  hath  invested 

vS!  iT,  p.’276  connexion,”  Moore’s  Life  of  Wesley, 


Section  VI — l>r.  Coke's  Letter  to  Bishop  White. 

1701  Pennsylvania,  dated  24th  April 

1791,  Dr.  Coke  says,  Mr.  Wesley.  “  did  indeed  solemnly  invest  me 

3  ar  as  he  had  a  right  so  to  do,  with  Episcopal  authority.”  On 
this  phrase,  as  far  as  he  had  a  right  so  to  do,”  Mr.  M’Caine  de- 
c  aims  with  great  self  gratulation.  And  connecting  with  it  what  he 
r  C  P™Pn®nls  to  bishop  White,  to  have  the  preachers  in 

the  Methodist  Episcopal  church  reordained  by  bishop  White  and 
himself  and  the  gentleman  connected  with  him.  Consecrated  for  the 
Episcopal  office  he  exults  in  these  figments,  as  if  he  had  convicted 
Dr.  Coke  out  of  his  own  mouth,  that  he  rfiW  doubt  the  validity  of  his 
mvn  ordination,  and  consequently  his  right  to  ordain  others :  althouo-h 
Dr.  Coke  constantly  affirmed  that  he  did  not  doubt  it,  nor  had  a 
others*”  ****^  constant  practice  of  ordaining 

Mr  M’Caine  has  been  careful  to  collect  into  his  pamphlet  the  stale 
objections  of  the  enemies  not  only  of  our  Episcopacy,  but  of  our  whole 
ministry  and  order— and  if  we  are  to  be  governed  by  his  authorities 
his  own  ordination  as  an  elder  is  not  one  whit  more  valid  than  the 
Episcopal  ordination  of  our  bishops.  If  the  reader  will  turn  to  p.  10 
of  History  and  Mystery,”  &c,  he  will  find  a  passage,  which  we  have 
already  quoted,  commencing  thus;  “It  is  a  principle  universally 
established  among  Episcopalians,”  &c.  Mr.  M’Caine  marks  that  pas¬ 
sage  as  a  quotation,  yet  gives  no  authority  for  it ;  although  in  Xeru 
other  instance  under  that  head,  he  names  his  authority.  Why  did  he 
not  name  it  in  this?  Was  it  not  because  he  was  himself  ashamed  of 
It '  Because  it  was  taken  from  an  avowed  and  personal  enemy  of  our 
whole  order ;  who  denied  the  validity  of  every  gospel  ordinance  as 
administered  by  us;  and  who,  with  all  the  effrontery  of  Rome,  asserts 
in  the  very  next  parapraph  to  that  which  Mr.  M’Caine  cites,  that  “  no 
true  church  can  exist  without  a  true  Episcopacy,  and  that  no  Episco- 
pacy  can  be  a  true  one  but  that  which  is  derived  from  the  holy  apostles 
in  the  order  of  bishops  as  superior  to,  and  distinct  from,  the  order  of 
presbyters.  The  author  of  that  pamphlet,  after  having  separated 
himself  frorn  the  Methodist  church,  exerted  what  skill  he  had  to  prove 
schism,  and  destitute  of  every  valid  gospel  ordinance. 

1  rom  that  pamphlet,  if  we  may  judge  from  their  correspondence,  Mr. 

*  Yet  in  the  face  of  this  broad  declaration,  Mr.  M’Caine  repeatedly  endeavours 
make  out  that  Dr.  Coke  doubtful  of  the  validity  of  his  mvn  ordination 


jVrCame  has  drawn  his  materials  on  the  subject  of  this  section  ;  but 
has  not  had  the  candour  to  inform  his  readers  that  there  has  ever  been 
any  refutation  oi  that  author’s  aspersions. 

The  laboured  declamation  of  Mr.  M’Caine  on  this  subject,  as,  in-^ 
deed,  a  large  portion  of  his  book,  is  founded  on  an  entire  misconcep¬ 
tion,*  or  misrepresentation,  of  Methodist  Episcopacy.  Mr.  Wesley 
invested  Dr.  Coke  with  “  Episcopal  authority''  in  relation  to  the 
Methodists  in  America,  In  relation  to  other  churches,  Dr.  Coke  had 
no  ‘'  Episcopal  authority nor  did  Mr.  Wesley  claim  a  right  to  give 
him  any.  In  this  respect  his  language  was  considerate  and  precise. 
Neither  have  the  bishops  of  other  churches  any  “  Episcopal  authority” 
in  relation  to  us ;  nor  could  they  confer  such  authority  among  us  on 
any  individual  without  our  act.  ^ 

Had  Dr.  Coke,  for  the  sake  of  union  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  ^ 
Church,  consented  to  submit  to  a  second  Episcopal  ordination,  or  | 
“  consecration,”  it  would  by  no  means  have  proved  that  he  therefore  f 
acknowledged,  or  even  doubted,thevalidity  of  his  prior  ordination,  It  is  | 
well  known  that  some  Methodist  presbyters,  who  have  joined  other  I 
churches,  have  submitted  to  a  second  ordination,  not  for  their  own  " 
satisfaction,  but  for  the  satisfaction  of  others,  and  because  it  was 
required  of  them  in  order  to  the  union.  The  case  would  have  been 
analogous,  had  Dr,  Coke  submitted  to  a  second  Episcopal  ordination, 
for  the  sake  of  union  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  With  his 
uiews  at  that  time  of  the  probable  effects  of  such  an  union,  he  might 
not  have  considered  it  wrong  in  such  circumstances,  to  submit  to  a 
reordination.  That  such  were  the  principles  by  which  he  was  actu-^ 
ated,  we  have  his  own  positive  declarations.  An  authenticated  copy 
of  a  letter  which  he  addressed  to  bishop  Asbury  on  this  subject,  is 
now  before  us,  dated  “near  Leeds,  Feb.  2,  1808.”  In  this  letter  he 
States  that  he  had  heard  that  there  had  been  a  paper  war  concerning 
a  letter  which  he  wrote  in  the  year  1791,  to  bishop  White.  He 
acknowledges  that  when  he  wrote  that  letter  he  did  then  believe  that 
the  union  which  he  proposed  would  have  a  good  effect.  And  par-v 
ticularly,  that  “  it  would  very  much  enlarge  our  field  of  action,  and 
that  myriads  would,  in  consequence  of  it,  attend  our  ministry,  who 
were  then  much  prejudiced  against  us.”  He  adds,  however,  that 
he  had  no  idea  of  “  deciding”  on  any  thing.  That  such  an  idea, 
without  the  concurrence  of  bishop  Asbury  and  of  the  General  Confer¬ 
ence,  would  have  been  absurd  ;  and  that  what  he  did  was  intended 
to  ascertain  the  sense  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  preparatory 
to  the  General  Conference ;  but  at  the  same  time  he  expressly  de¬ 
clares,  “  I  never  applied  to  the  convention  for  reconsecration.  T. 
never  intended  that  either  you  or  I  should  give  up  our  Episcopal  ordi¬ 
nation.  My  proposals  secured  our  discipline  in  all  points''  And 
afterwards  adds,  “  But  I  now  see  that  the  failure  of  my  plan,  which 
was  laid  down  from  the  purest  motives,  was  for  the  best.”  The  Rev. 
Ezekiel  Cooper  has  in  his  possession  an  original  letter  from  Dr. 
Coke  to  himself,  of  the  same  import. 

Bishop  White  states  that  one  of  the  outlines  of  Dr.  Coke’s  plan,  as 
+0  “  the  Methodist  ministers,”  was  “  their  continuing  under  the  super- 

4 


kUndmce  then  existing^  and  on  the  pi-actices  of  their  peculiar  institu¬ 
tions.”  This  coincides  with  Dr.  Coke’s  statement.  Bishop  White 
adds  “  There  was  also  suggested  by  him,  a  propriety,  but  not  a  con^ 
dition  made,  of  admitting  to  the  Episcopacy  himself  and  the  gentleman 
associated  with  him  in  the  superintendence  of  the  Methodist  societies.” 
This  suggestion,  so  far  as  we  can  discover,  is  not  to  be  found  in  Dr. 
Coke’s  letter.  It  is  true  bishop  White  says  in  another  place,  as  quoted 
by  Mr.  M’Caine  in  a  note,  “  or  it  may  ham  been  the  consecration  of 
himself,”  [Dr.  Coke,]  “  and  the  gentleman  connected  with  him,  for 
this  measure  was  hinted  in  a  conversation  that  afterwards  took  place 
between  us.”  The  very  terms  of  this  note  show  doubt  on  the  face  of 
it.  And  as  we  shall  presently  demonstrate  that  bishop  White  mis¬ 
took  the  import  of  Dr.  Coke’s  letter,  it  must  be  admitted  to  be  possible 
that  he  might  at  least  equally  have  misapprehended  a  hint  m  con¬ 
versation.  But  why  does  Mr.  M’Caine  commence  his  quotation  from 
bishop  White’s  letter  of  Sept.  1806,  in  this  broken  manner  ;  “  Or  it 
may  have  been,”  &c  ?  What  went  before  “  Or?''  and  why  was  it 
not  quoted  ?  If  we  examine  the  preceding  part  of  that  paragraph  in 
bishop  White’s  letter,  the  reason  is  obvious.  It  did  not  suit  Mr. 
M’Caine’s  purpose.  Bishop  White  was  conjecturing  by  what  mean 
Dr.  Coke  had  probably  contemplated  the  removal  of  a  difficulty  on  the 
part  of  some  of  the  preachers  in  rising  up  to  ordination,  if  it  were  left 
dependent  on  the  then  bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 
That  difficulty  respected  those  preachers  who  were  not  acquainted 
with  the  learned  languages.  “What  was  his  intended  mean  of 
removal  of  this  difficulty,”  says  bishop  White,  “  does  not  appear  in  the 
letter.  It  may  have  been,  a  promise  on  the  part  of  the  bishops,  that 
the  ordination  of  the  persons  in  question  should  not  be  prevented  by 
that  'circumstance.  Or  it  may  have  been,"  &.c,  as  quoted  by  Mr. 
M’Caine.  The  ivhole  passage  taken  together  shows,  that  it  was  con¬ 
jectural  As  such  we  leave  it.  The  propensity  of  the  human  rnind  to 
conjecture  what  is  most  accordant  with  its  own  habits  of  thinking,  or 
what  is  best  calculated  to  support  its  own  views,  is  too  well  known  to 
require  discussion  here. 

But  even  admitting  that  bishop  White  may  have  been  correct  in  his 
impression,  that  Dr.  Coke  did  hint  in  conversation  the  propriety  of  ad¬ 
mitting  to  the  Episcopacy  himself  and  the  gentleman  associated  with 
him,  in  case  of  union  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  it  may  be 
easily  accounted  for  on  bishop  White’s  own  principles,  without  sup¬ 
posing  Dr.  Coke  by  any  means  to  have  intended  to  admit  the  nullity 
of  his  former  Episcopal  ordination.  Dr.  Coke  might,  at  that  time, 
have  thought  it  expedient,  if  a  union  took  place,  in  order  to  gain  the 
more,  and  to  enlarge  our  field  of  action,  to  accommodate  himself  to 
the  prejudices  of  those  who  deemed  what  they  termed  the  succes¬ 
sion,”  of  importance.  This  was  precisely  what  bishop  White  himself 
had  proposed  but  a  few  years  before,  in  “  The  case  of  the  Episcopal 
churches  considered.”— “  If,”  said  he,  “  such”  [measures]  “  as  have 
been  above  recommended  should  be  adopted,”  [viz.  admitting  to  the 
ministry  by  a  clergyman  elected  as  permanent  president,  in  conjunction 
with  other  clergymen,]  “  and  the  Episcopal  succession  afterwards 
obtained,  any  supposed  imperfections  of  the  intermediate  ordinations. 


snight,  if  it  were  judged  proper,  be  supplied  without  acknowledgihg 
their  nullity,  by  a  conditional  ordination,  resembling  that  of  condi¬ 
tional  baptism'’  p.  17. 

But  we  conjecture  if  Dr.  Coke  did  hint  or  suggest  the  propriety  of 
admitting  to  the  Episcopacy,  in  union  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
church,  himself  and  the  gentleman  connected  with  him,  he  either 
meant  that  they  should  be  so  admitted  without  reconscc ration ;  or,  if 
with  reconsecration,  then  it  was  that  he  would  submit  to  this  for  the 
sake  of  being  more  extensively  usef  ul  among  those  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  church,  who  might  deem  it  of  importance,  in  case  of  such 
an  union,  and  not  at  all  because  he  deemed  it  of  any  sort  of 
consequence, — much  less  of  necessity,  either  for  himself,  or  for  the 
Methodists. 

But  we  have  said  that  bishop  White  mistook  the  import  of  Dr. 
Coke’s  letter,  and  may  possibly  have  equally  mistaken  the  import  of 
what  he  considered  a  hint  in  conversation.  It  remains  to  show  this. 

In  his  letter  of  July,  1804,  bishop  White  says,  “  The  general  ouU 
lines  of  Dr.  Coke’s  plan  were  a  reordination  of  the  Methodist  minis¬ 
ters,”  &.C.  In  the  letter  of  Sept.  1806,  he  expresses  it  thus.  “  His 
plan”  [Dr.  Coke’s]  “  was  that  all  the  ordained  ministers  then  in  the 
Methodist  connection  should  receive  Episcopal  ordination.”  Now  let 
us  turn  to  Dr.  Coke’s  own  language,  as  contained  in  his  letter  to 
bishop  White,  dated  April  24,  1791.  “Our  ordained  ministers,”  says 
Dr.  Coke,  “  will  not,  ought  not,  to  give  up  their  right  of  administer¬ 
ing  the  sacraments.”  Here  their  then  existing  “  right"  io  administer 
the  sacraments  is  expressly  asserted,  and  also  their  obligation  not  to 
give  it  up,  being  a  “  right"  of  a  sacred  character,  already  vested.  The 
validity  of  their  ordination,  is,  in  this  passage,  unequivocally  averred. 
Yet  Dr.  Coke  adds,  “  I  don’t  think  that  the  generality  of  them,  per¬ 
haps  none  of  them,  would  refuse  to  submit  to  a  reordination,  if  other 
hindrances  were  removed  out  of  the  way.”  Now  we  ask  in  the  name 
of  candour,  if  there  be  no  difference  between  saying  it  was  Dr.  Coke  s 
plan,  as  if  it  had  been  proposed  by  him  as  a  thing  deemed  necessary 
by  himself,  that  all  the  ordained  Methodist  ministers  should  be  teor- 
dained, — and  his  averring  that  they  ought  not  to  give  up  the  “  right 
which  they  previously  possessed  of  administering  the  sacraments, 
though  he  did  not  think  that  most  of  them,  perhaps  none  of  them, 
would  refuse  to  submit  to  reordination,  if  their  compliance  in  that  r^ 
spect  should  be  the  only  remaining  hindrance  to  a  union  The  dif¬ 
ference  to  us  is  clear.  And  we  believe  it  will  be  equally  plain  to  ever) 

impartial  and  candid  reader.  i-.  i  ?  i 

But  we  will  go  further,  and  say,  had  it  even  been  Dr.  Coke  s  plan 
that  all  the  ordained  Methodist  ministers  should  be  reordained,  in  case 
of  an  union  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  it  could  not  have 
been  because  he  admitted  the  nullity  of  their  existing  ordina^n, 
unless  he  palpably  contradicted  himself  in  the  same  breath.  The 
principle  of  such  a  proposal,  had  it  been  made,  could  have  been  no 
other,  from  the  evidence  before  us,  than  that  above  stated,  viz.  a  will-^ 
ingness,  for  the  sake  of  more  extensive  usefulness,  to  accommodate 
himself  to  the  prejudices  of  others,  when  he  did  not  believe  that  his 
ifoing  so  would  be  sinful.  The  justifiableness,  and  even  the  expediency 


of  slicli  a  course,  without  admitting  the  nullity  of  former  ordinations, 
had  been  previously  to  that  time  amply  vindicated  by  bishop  White 
himself,  in  the  case  of  the  Episcopal  churches.  That  pamphlet  Dr. 
(;^oke  had  no  doubt  seen,  and  it  is  highly  probable  that  that  very  work 
had  a  principal  influence  in  inducing  him  to  approach  bishop  White 
particularly  on  that  subject. 

We  have  only  to  add  here,  that  whatever  Dr.  Coke  did  in  this  mat¬ 
ter,  was  his  own  individual  act;  and  was  neither  approved  of,  not 
known  by  his  colleague,  bishop  Asbury,  nor,  as  far  as  we  are  acquainted, 
by  a  single  other  Methodist  minister  in  the  United  States.  And  that 
Dr.  Coke  himself  lived  long  enough  to  see,  and  with  his  characteristic 
candour,  to  acknowledge  that  the  failure  of  his  scheme  had  been  for 
the  best.* 

A  statement  on  this  subject  similar  to  that  of  Mr.  M‘Caine,  was 
made  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wyatt,  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  in 
a  sermon  published  by  that  gentleman,  in  Baltimore,  in  the  year  1820. 
From  the  correspondence  of  their  materials  it  seems  pretty  evident 
that  they  both  drew  from  the  same  fountain ;  which,  however,  they 
seem  to  have  been  equally  ashamed  to  own.  That  Dr.  Wyatt  drew 
from  it  we  think  there  can  be  little  doubt ;  for  he  adds  to  the  story  a 
remarkable  fabrication  of  his  author,  which  we  believe  never  before 
appeared  any  where  else;  and  which  it  might  have  been  well  for  Dr. 
Wyatt  to  have  given  that  author  credit  for  ;  since,  in  not  doing  so,  he 
has  taken  upon  himself  the  responsibility  of  asserting  as  a  fact  what 
w-e  peremptorily  deny  to  be  such. 

The  author  to  whom  we  allude  asserts  that  Dr.  Coke’s  proposal  to 
bishop  White  was  made  ‘^witJi  the  sanction,  if  not  actually  hy  the 
order  of  Mr.  Wesley.'”  Dr.  Wyatt  merely  varies  the  phraseology  a 
little,  and  asserts  it  was  “  with  the  approbation  if  not  direction  of  Mr. 
Wesley.”  In  either  shape  we  deny  the  statement  and  demand  the 
proof.  The  fact  is  that  Mr.  Wesley  at  the  time  was  dead.  And  if 
the  communication  to  bishop  White  had  been  made  by  Dr.  Coke  with 
his  approbation,  and  much  more  if  by  his  direction,  there  can  be  no 

*  That  Dr.  Coke  was  ardent  in  his  temperament,  and  sometimes  hasty  and  pre¬ 
cipitate  in  his  measures,  his  best  friends  will  admit.  But  his  candour,  when  con¬ 
vinced  of  an  error,  was  a  trait  in  his  character  not  less  predominantly  striking. — 
At  some  periods  of  his  life  there  is  no  question  that  he  would  have  been  willing  to 
make  even  undue  sacrifices  for  the  sake  of  accomplishing  a  union  between  the  body 
of  Methodists  and  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church ;  and  also  with  the  church  of 
England.  In  addition  to  the  prejudices  of  his  education,  as  a  clergyman  of  the 
church  of  England,  it  is  highly  probable,  too,  that,  at  the  time  of  writing  to  bishop 
White,  neither  his  mind,  nor,  perhaps,  as  he  supposed,  Mr.  Wesley’s,  had  entirely 
recovered  from  the  influence  of  the  proceedings  of  the  conference  of  1787,  in  rela¬ 
tion  to  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Whatcoat,  and  the  leaving  of  Mr.  Wesley’s  name  oft’ 
the  Minutes.  This  state  of  things,  according  to  Dr.  Coke’s  views,  may  serve  to 
accouv/t  for  several  expressions  in  his  letter  to  bishop  White,  both  in  relation  to 
Mr.  Wesley  and  to  bishop  Asbury.  The  transactions  of  that  period  of  our  history 
we  shall  presently  explain  more  fully.  It  is  sufficient  to  add  here  that  whatever 
tinfavourable  impressions  respecting  Mr.  Asbury  had  been  produced  abroad,  pre¬ 
viously  to  that  time,  he  outlived  them  all.  The  aflectionate  assurances  of  confi¬ 
dence  and  union  which  passed  between  Dr.  Coke  and  him,  at  the  General  Confer¬ 
ence  of  1796,  are  well  remembered  by  several  now  living,  who  were  then  present. 
And  Dr.  Coke’s  letter  to  him,  of  Feb.  1808,  quoted  above,  abundantly  attests  the 
fact. 


33 


iloubt,  from  the  open  manner  in  which  Dr.  Coke  unbosomed  himself 
to  bishop  White,  and  from  the  use  which  he  did  make  of  Mr.  Wesley’s 
name  that  he  would  not  have  failed  to  mention  so  very  important  a 
circumstance,  nor  bishop  White  to  communicate  it.  In  fact,  justice, 
in  this  case,  would  have  required  it,  in  Dr.  Coke’s  defence.  And  we 
respectfully  submit  it  to  the  Rev.  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  university 
^  of  Maryland  whether  attempts  in  this  way  to  wound  so  large  and  re¬ 

spectable  a  body  as  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  on  such  authority j 
be  not  more  disparaging  to  his  own  sacred  and  elevated  character 
than  to  them. 

In  one  colouring  of  the  matter,  however,  neither  Mr.  M‘Caine  nor 
Dr.  Wyatt  seems  to  have  had  the  hardihood  to  follow  up  his  author. — 
That  author  says — “  It  was  a  society  applying  for  readrnission  into  the 
church,  and  not  two  equally  independent  bodies  that  were  to  be  con¬ 
sidered  as  negotiating.” — “  The  society  could  and  did  acknowledge 
the  church  she  applied  to,”  &;C.  Now,  as  it  respects  any  application 
on  this  subject  from  the  society^  as  he  here  calls  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  all  this  is  wholly  false.  Though,  in  our  opinion,  there  is  just 
as  much  truth  in  it  as  in  the  assertion  of  the  same  author  that  Dr. 
Coke’s  proposal  was  made  with  the  sanction,  if  not  by  the  order  of 
Mr.  Wesl  ?y. — And  this  tale,  we  a;  prehend,  will  gain  but  little  addi¬ 
tional  credit  when  it  is  known  that  it  originated  with  one  who  had 
deserted  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  joined  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  ;  and  after  pronouncing  upon  that  church  the  most 
fulsome  and  high  toned  eulogies,  subsequently  abandoned  it  also, 
and  went  where  all  who  hold  such  principles  as  he  had  avowed,  to  be 
consistent  with  themselves  ought  to  go, — to  the  Papists.  And  thence 
no  doubt  looked  down  on  Dr.  Wyatt,  and  the  whole  “  schismaticaV* 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  with  as  much  contempt  as  he  had  before 
arrogated  to  himself  the  right  to  bestow,  with  so  much  bitter  haughti¬ 
ness,  upon  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  We  mean  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Kewley.  And  this  gentleman  is  one  of  the  “  writers”  passed  off  on 
his  readers  by  Mr.  M‘Caine,  among  his  ecclesiastical  writers  of  “  great 
celebrity  !*” 

Dr.  Wyatt  asserts,  further,  that  “  it  has  been  the  faith  of  the  univer¬ 
sal  church,  without  exce  dion,  until  the  period  of  the  reformation,  that 
to  the  order  of  bishops  alone  belongs  the  power  of  ordaining  minis¬ 
ters  :  and  that  an  ordination  performed  by  the  hands  of  a  priest,  dea¬ 
con,  or  layman,  or  by  any  number  of  either,  would  be  devoid  of  every 
degree  of  validity  and  efficacy  ,  in  conferring  spiritual  office  and  power.” 

+  Dr.  Bowden,  another  high  church  writer,  in  his  letters  to  Dr.  Miller,  affirms  that 
John  Wesley  was  evidently  persuaded  by  Coke,  and  two  or  three  others,  to  take' the 
step  of  ordaining  bishops  for  America;  and  that  it  did  not  originate  with  himself. 
This  vvill  be  sufficiently  refuted  in  our  section  of  “  Testimonies  of  English  Method¬ 
ists.”  Dr.  Bowden  asserts  also  that  Coke  offered  to  bishop  White  “to  give  up 
their  spurious  Episcopacy,”  and  insinuates  that  John  Wesley  acted  “absolutely  in 
contradiction  to  his  own  conviction.”  Dr.  Bowden,  however,  wrote  evidently  in 
I  too  great  wrath  to  treat  even  the  names  of  John  Wesley  and  of  Coke,  with  common 

decency.  Nor  will  the  reader  be  surprised  at  his  saying  any  thing  that  suited  the 
purpose  of  abusing  the  Methodists,  when  informed  that  he  copied  Mr.  Kewley, 
whose  authority  he  had  the  prudence  to  cite. — Mr.  Kewley  adopted  the  maxim, 
“throw  dirt  enough  and  some  will  stick  And  Dr.  Bowden  followed  his  example. 


> 


H 


Uy  bishops  in  this  passage  we  understand  Dr.  Wyatt  to  mean  diocesan 
bishops,  in  the  high  church  sense.  And  as  he  thought  proper  to  applv 
his  remarks  to  the  “  Methodist  denomination”  by  name,  whom  he 
acknowledges  to  be  “  zealous  and  devout,”  whilst  he  excludes  our 
whole  order  from  any  part  or  lot  in  the  Christian  ministry,  he  will 
excuse  us  for  saying  a  few  words  in  self  defence.  Agitur  de  vita  ef 
sanguine  Turni. 

Dr.  Wyatt  has  not  even  excepted  the  “  exigence  of  necessity,” 
which  even  Hooker  says  may  “  constrain  to  leave  the  usual  ways  of 
the  church.”  The  same  Mr.  Hooker  adds,  “  Where  the  church  must 
needs  have  some  ordained,  and  neither  hath,  nor  can  have  possibly  a 
bishop  to  ordain ;  in  case  of  such  necessity,  the  ordinary  institution 
hath  given  oftentimes^  and  may  give,  place.  And  therefore  we  are  not 
simply,  without  exception,  to  urge  a  lineal  descent  of  power  from  the 
apostles  by  continued  succession  Of  bishops,  in  every  effectual  ordina¬ 
tion.”  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  Book  vii.  Sec.  14. 

The  authority  of  Mr.  Hooker  has  always  been  ranked  in  the  first 
class  by  high  churchmen  themselves ;  and  Dr.  White,  as  we  have  be¬ 
fore  shown,  asserted  that  the  necessity  of  the  churches  in  this  country, 
about  the  close  of  the  revolutionary  war,  was  even  greater  than  the 
exigence  of  those  foreign  churches  to  which  Hooker  alluded. 

In  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.,  about  the  year  1547,  a  very  grave  and 
learned  assembly  of  select  divines,  was  called  by  the  king’s  special 
order,  for  debating  the  settlement  of  things  according  to  the  word  of 
God,  and  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church.  It  consisted  of  Cran- 
mer,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the  archbishop  of  York,  and  many 
other  prelates  and  divines  of  the  first  distinction.  The  account  of 
their  proceedings  Dr.  Stillingfleet  assures  us  he  took  himself  from  the 
authentic  manuscript  of  archbishop  Cranmer,  then  first  published.  To 
the  questions  propounded  to  the  assembly  by  order  of  the  king,  those 
eminent  divines  gave  in  their  answers  severally,  on  paper  ;  which  were 
all  accurately  summed  up  and  set  down  by  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury 
himself.  The  following  were  some  of  the  questions  and  answers. 

Quest.  10.  Whether  bishops  or  priests  were  first;  and  if  the  priests 
were  first,  then  the  priest  made  the  bishop  ?” 

Answ.  The  bishops  and  priests  were  at  one  time,  and  were 
not  two  things,  but  both  one  oflfice  in  the  beginning  of  Christ’s 
religion.” 

Quest.  13.  ‘‘Whether  (if  it  fortuned  a  prince  Christien  lerned,  to 
conquer  certen  domynyons  of  infidells,  having  none  but  the  temporal 
lerned  men  with  him)  it  be  defended  by  God’s  law,  that  he  and  they 
should  preche  and  teche  the  word  of  God  there  or  no,  and  also  make 
and  constitute  priests  or  no  I” 

Answ.  “  It  is  not  against  God’s  law,  but  contrary  they  ought  indede 
so  to  do,  and  there  be  historyes  that  witnesseth  that  some  Christien 

princes  and  other  laymen  unconsecrate  have  done  the  same.” - 

Observe, — “  there  be  histories  that  witness.^' — certainly  before  “  the 
reformation,”  which  was  then  but  just  begun. 

Quest.  14.  “  Whether  it  be  forfended  by  God’s  law,  that  if  it  so 
fortuned  that  all  the  bishopps  and  priests  were  dedde,  and  that  the  word 
of  God  shuld  there  unpreached,  the  sacrament  of  baptisme  and  others 


'UumiQistred,  the  king  of  that  region  shulde  make  hishoppes  and  priests? 
to  supply  the  same  or  no?” 

Answ.  “  It  is  not  forbidden  by  God’s  law.”* 

Iren.  pp.  386-39?* 

If  we  may  believe  the  great  antiquaries  of  the  church  of  Scotland, 
that  church  was  governed  by  their  culdei,  as  they  called  their  preshy- 

ters,  without  any  bishop  over  them,  for  a  long  time. - Johannes 

Fordonus  (De  gestis  Scot.  lib.  ii,  ch.  2,)  is  clear  and  full  as  to  their 
government  from  the  time  of  their  conversion  about  A.  D.  263,  to  the 
coming  of  Palladius,  A.  D.  430,  that  they  were  only  governed  by 
presbyters  and  monks.  Ante  Palladii  adventum  habebant  Scoti  fidei 
doctores  ac  sacraynentonim  minisfratores  presbyteros  solummodoj  vel 
monachos  ritum  sequentes  Ecclesise  primitivae.”  Ib.  p.  375. 

It  is  no  way  sufficient,  sap  Stillingfleet,  “  to  say  that  these  presby¬ 
ters  did  derive  their  authority  from  some  bishops - if  they  had  any 

they  were  only  chosen  from  their  culdei^'  (as  they  called  their  pres¬ 
byters,)  “  much  after  the  custom  of  the  church  of  Alexandria,  as 
Hector  Boethius  doth  imply.  And  if  we  believe  Philostorgius,  the 
Gothic  churches  were  planted  and  governed  by  presbyters  for  above 
seventy  years ;  for  so  long  it  was  from  their  first  conversion  to  the 
time  of  Ulphilas,  whom  he  makes  their  first  bishop.”  Ib. 

For  another  instance,  about  the  year  390,  see  Irenicum,  p.  379, — 
and  others  in  the  year  452,  after  stating  and  arguing  which.  Dr.  Stil¬ 
lingfleet  thus  concludes.  “  It  appears  then  that  this  power”  [of  ordi¬ 
nation  by  presbyters]  was  restrained  by  the  laws  of  the  church,  for 
preserving  unity  in  itself;  but  yet  so  that  in  case  of  necessity  what 
was  done  by  presbyters  was  not  looked  on  as  invalid.”  Ib.  p.  381. 

We  have  already  referred  to  the  practice  of  the  church  of  Alexan¬ 
dria  in  making  their  bishops ;  for  more  than  two  hundred  years.  The 
mode  in  which  some  high  church  writers  attempt  to  explain  Jerome’s 
account  of  that  matter  we  are  not  unapprized  of.  It  would  be  easy  to 
show  that  their  explanation  by  no  means  deprives  us,  in  this  case,  of 
the  authority  even  of  Jerome ;  and  those  learned  doctors,  to  use  the 
language  of  Stillingfleet,  who  would  persuade  us  that  the  presbyters 
did  only  make  choice  of  the  person,  but  the  ordination  was  performed 
by  other  bishops,  would  do  well  jirst  to  tell  us  who  and  where  those 
bishops  were, — especially  while  Egypt  remained  but  one  province 
under  the  Prsefectus  Augustalis.  But  in  proof  of  the  correctness  of 
our  understanding  of  the  case,  we  adduce  the  testimony  of  the  pa¬ 
triarch  of  Alexandria  himself,  who  expressly  affirms,  as  we  have  before 
quoted,  “  That  the  twelve  presbyters  constituted  by  Mark,  upon  the 
vacancy  of  the  see,  did  choose  out  of  their  number  one  to  be  head  over 
the  rest,  and  the  other  eleven  did  lay  their  hands  upon  him,  and  blessed 
Mm,  and  made  him  patriarchy  The  patriarch,  or  bishop  of  Alexan- 

*  Of  archbishop  Cranmer,  Dr.  Warner,  as  cited  with  approbation  by  bishop 
White,  says,  “  His  equal  was  never  yet  seen  in  the  see  of  Canterbury,  and  1  will 
take  upon  me  to  say  that  his  superior  never  will.” — The  two  last  questions  and 
answers  above,  are  cited  by  bishop  White  also,  who  adds  respecting  them,  “  The 
above  may  be  offered  as  the  opinions  of  not  only  Cranmer,  but  also  of  most  of  the 
eminent  bishops  and  other  clergy  of  that  period.”  Episcopal  Churches  Consider¬ 
ed,  p. 


dria,  who  states  this,  was  Eutychius,  whose  annals ,  with  several  othe? 
productions  of  his  learned  pen,  are  still  extant,  and  whom  Mosheim 
mentions  as  the  chief  example  of  those  Egyptian  writers  of  the  tenth 
century,  ‘‘  who  in  genius  and  learning  were  no  wise  inferior  to  the 
most  eminent  of  the  Grecian  literati.”  Mosh.  Vol.  ii,  383,  404. 

Stillingfleet  understood  this  case  as  published  by  the  most  learned 
Selden,  precisely  in  the  same  sense  ;  and  it  is  evident  that  archbishop 
Usher  did  also ;  for  when,  he  says,  king  Charles  the  I.  asked  him 
at  the  Isle  of  Wight,  whether  he  found  in  antiquity  that  presbyters 
alone  ordained  any^  he  replied,  yes ;  and  that  he  could  show  his  ma¬ 
jesty  more,  even  where  presbyters  alone  successively  ordained  bishops, 
and  brought  as  an  instance  of  this  the  presbyters  of  Alexandria 
choosing  and  making  their  own  bishops,  from  the  days  of  Mark,  till 
Heraclas  and  Dionysius,  a  space  of  more  than  200  years. 

But  after  all  that  Dr.  Wyatt  has  said,  it  is  not  a  little  remarkable 
that  he  recognises  the  Lutheran  church  of  Sweden,  as  a  regular  and 
valid  Episcopal  church  ;  although  if  Dr.  Miller  be  correct,  it  is  noto¬ 
rious  that  the  first  ministers  who  undertook  to  ordain  in  Sweden,  after 
the  introduction  of  the  reformation,  were  only  presbyters;  and  the 
Lutheran  church  does  not  scruple  to  admit  the  ordination  even  of 
bishops  by  presbyters,  and  indisputably  disclaims  any  pretence  of  an 
apostolical  and  “  divinely  protected  succession”  of  bishops,  for  the 
validity  of  Episcopacy. 

The  burden  of  proof  in  this  matter  was  not  properly  incumbent  on 
ns ;  yet  we  have  now  adduced  cases  sufficient  to  form  at  least  some 
exceptions  to  Dr.  Wyatt’s  sweeping  universal  affirmative.  When  he 
shall  have  satisfactorily  disposed  of  these,  we  may  perhaps  produce 
more. 


Section  VII. —  The  Prayer  Book  of  1784. 

Mr.  M’Caine  says,  “  The  distinction  between  bishops  and  pres¬ 
byters  being  the  foundation  of  the  Episcopal  form  of  government,  and 
this  distinction  having  no  existence  in  fact,  nor  in  Mr.  Wesley’s 
creed,  our  Episcopal  superstructure  falls  to  the  ground.”  p.  19.  Now 
we  have  abundantly  proved,  according  to  ecclesiastical  writers  of  the 
most  distinguished  celebrity,  that  an  Episcopal  form  of  government 
is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  admission  that  bishops  and  presbyters 
were  primarily  and  inherently  the  same  order.  And  we  have  espe¬ 
cially  proved  that  this  was  Mr.  Wesley’s  view  in  particular.  It  was 
ten  years  after  he  was  convinced  that  bishops  and  presbyters  were  the 
same  order,  that  he  declared  that  he  still  believed  the  Episcopal  form 
of  church  government  to  be  Scriptural  and  apostolical ;  that  is,  well 
agreeing  with  the  practice  and  writings  of  the  apostles.  So  far  as 
this  argument  is  concerned,  therefore,  our  ‘‘  Episcopal  superstructure,” 
may  still  stand. 

In  another  place,  p.  14,  Mr.  M’Caiiie  says,  “  It  is  upon  the  prciyer 
hook  our  Episcopal  mode  of  government  is  made  to  rest,  and  this  is 
the  only  authority  which  is  attempted  ia  be  produced  for  it.”  Wore 


^7 


we  disposed  to  adopt  Mr.  M’Caine’s  language,  and  to  give  our  remarks 
u  serious  moral  bearing,”  we  might  ask,  Is  this  “  truth 

But,  although  it  is  very  far  from  being  true  that  the  prayer  book  is 
the  only  authority  which  is  at  least  attempted  to  be  produced  for  our 
Episcopal  mode  of  government,  yet,  so  far  as  Mr.  Wesley’s  recommen- 
>  dation  is  concerned,  we  shall  probably  make  a  little  more  out  of  the 

prayer  book  than  the  silly  witness  “  brought  into  court”  by  Mr. 
M’Caine,  who  was  careful  both  to  choose  his  witness,  and  to  put  such 
answers  into  his  mouth  as  were  to  his  own  purpose.  Such  a  process 
a  good  cause  cannot  need.  A  bad  one  it  might  serve. 

Dr.  Coke’s  letters  of  ordination  as  a  superintendent,  were  dated 
Sept.  2,  1784.  Mr.  Wesley’s  preface  to  the  first  edition  of  his  abridg¬ 
ment  of  the  prayer  book  was  dated  Sept.  9,  1784,  and  his  letter  “  to 
Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  Asbury,  and  our  brethren  in  North  America,”  bore 
date  Sept.  10,  of  the  same  year.  These  documents,  therefore,  so 
nearly  synchronous,  are  to  be  regarded,  with  the  prayer  book,  as  parts 
of  one  whole ;  and  as  constituting,  together,  the  little  sketch”  which 
Mr.  Wesley  says  he  had  drawn  up  in  compliance  with  the  desire  of 
some  thousands  of  the  inhabitants  of  these  States.  This  “  sketch” 
had  direct  reference  to  the  “  ecclesiastical  authority”  to  be  exercised 
among  “  our  brethren  in  North  America ;”  w^here,  as  he  says  in  the 
sentence  immediately  preceding,  no  one  then  “  either  exercised  or 
claimed  any  ecclesiastical  authority  at  all.” 

Mr.  M’Caine  admits  that  the  prayer  book  of  1784,  entitled  “  The 
Sunday  service  of  the  Methodists  in  North  America,  with  other  occa^ 
sional  services,”  was  printed  at  Mr.  Wesley’s  own  press,  and  sent  to 
us  by  the  hands  of  Dr.  Coke.  We  ask  then,  was  not  the  abridging, 
and  printing,  and  sending  this  book  to  us,  a  “  recommendation,”  even 
if  it  had  contained  no  preface,  and  the  term  “  recommend”  had  never 
been  used  ?  And  was  it  not  a  recommendation  of  those  “  other  occa¬ 
sional  services”  as  well  as  the  Sunday  service  ?”  And  for  what  were 
those  other  occasional  services  sent  to  us,  if  not  to  be  used  as  a  pattern 
in  the  ordering  of  our  ministry  ?  To  be  able  to  answer  these  ques¬ 
tions  satisfactorily,  it  will  be  necessary  to  observe  carefully  what  those 
‘'other  occasional  services”  were.  It  is  not  necessary  here  to  name 
those  for  baptism,  matrimony,  the  burial  of  the  dead,  &c.  The  fol¬ 
lowing  are  sufficient  for  our  purpose.  At  page  280,  we  find  the  forms 
for  ordaining  our  ministers  thus  headed  ;  “  The  form  and  manner  of 
making  and  ordaining  of  superintendents,  elders,  and  deacons.” 

The  first  office  following  is  entitled,  “  The  form  and  manner  of 
^  making  of  deacons.”  And  the  running  title  at  the  head  of  the  page 

is,  “  The  ordaining  of  deacons” 

The  second  office  is,  “  The  form  and  manner  of  ordaining  of  el¬ 
ders.”  The  running  title  is,  “  The  ordaining  of  elders” 

The  third  is,  “  The  form  of  ordaining  of  a  superintendent.”  The 
running  title  is,  “  The  ordination  of  superintendents” 

^  On  these  facts  we  remark  ; — 1.  It  is  a  fair  presumption  that  wheti 

Messrs.  Whatcoat  and  Vasey  were  set  apart  as  elders,  and  Dr.  Coke  as 
a  superintendent^  the  same  forms  were  used  by  Mr.  Wesley  himself 
which  he  abridged  for  us. 

2  He  himself  c.xpresslv  calls  these  acts  “ordaining,”  and  “  ordina*- 

5 


V 


tioii.”  The  reader  will  notice  that  Mr.  Wesley  undeniably  intended 
that  our  setting  apart  superintendents  in  America,  should  be  called 

ordaining'’  superintendents  ;  and  “  the  ordination  of  superintend¬ 
ents.”  Yet  when  Dr.  Coke  was  solemnly  set  apart  by  assisted 
by  three  other  presbyters,  Mr.  M’Caine  thinks  we  ought  not  to  call  it 
an  ordination,  and  that  Mr.  Wesley  meant  no  such  thing  ! 

3.  If  the  setting  apart  of  superintendents,  as  such,  was  not  intended 
by  Mr.  Wesley  to  establish  the  ordination  of  such  an  order  of  ministers 
among  us,  neither  was  the  setting  apart  of  deacons  and  elders,  intend¬ 
ed  to  establish  those  orders.  Similar  forms  and  solemnities  were  re¬ 
commended  for  the  former  as  for  the  latter.  In  this  case,  if  Mr. 
M’Caine’s  arguments  be  conclusive,  it  follows  as  clearly  that  Mr. 
M’Caine’s  eldership  has  been  “  saddled”  upon  the  people  contrary 
to  Mr.  Wesley’s  intention,  as  that  our  Episcopacy  has  been.  We 
assert  with  confidence,  that  any  intelligent,  candid,  and  impartial  man, 
who  shall  examine  this  prayer  book,  will  say,  either  that  Mr.  Wesley 
intended  to  establish  the  ordination  of  an  order  of  superintendents,  to 
act  as  bishops  '\\\  fact,  though  with  the  title  of  superintendents;  or, 
that  he  did  not  intend  to  establish  the  ordination  of  any  orders  of 
ministers  at  all ;  and  that  “  our  fathers”  utterly  mistook  “  the  whole 
affair,”* 

4.  The  preceding  remark  is  confirmed  by  this  fact.  The  forms 
recommended  to  us  by  Mr.  Wesley  for  “ordaining  of  superintendents, 
elders,  and  deacons,”  are  precisely  similar  to  those  used  by  the  church 
of  England,  and  by  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country, 
for  ordaining  of  “  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons.”  The  only  difference 
is  that  Mr.  Wesley  somewhat  abridged  the  forms,  with  a  few  verbal 
alterations,  and  substituted  the  title  “  superintendent,”  for  “  bishop,” 
just  as  he  did  that  of  “  elder”  for  “  priest.”  So  that  it  is  plain  if  by 
“  superintendent”  he  did  not  mean  that  order  of  ministers  denomi¬ 
nated  by  those  churches  “  bishops,”  neither  by  “  elder,”  did  he  mean 
that  order  of  ministers  denominated  by  those  churches  ‘^priests.” 

5.  In  whatever  sense  distinct  ordinations  constitute  distinct  orders, 
in  the  same  sense  Mr.  Wesley  certainly  intended  that  we  should  have 
three  orders.  For  he  undeniably  instituted  three  distinct  ordinations. 
All  the  forms  and  solemnities  requisite  for  the  constituting  of  any  one 
order,  in  this  sense,  were  equally  prepared  and  recommended  by  him 
to  US' for  the  constituting  of  three  orders.  The  term  “  ordain”  is  de¬ 
rived  from  the  Latin  ordino,  to  order,  to  create  or  commission  one  to 
be  a  public  officer. — And  this  from  ordo,  order.  And  hence  persons 
ordained,  are  said  to  be  persons  in  Holy  orders.”  And  the  degree  of 
ordination  stated  in  the  “  commission,”  or  letters  of  ordination,  shows 

*  Mr.  M’Caine’s  proceeding  reminds  us  of  the  old  Greek  apologue  of  the  eagle, 
wliich  we  will  give  in  an  ancient  English  version. 

“  The  eagle  saw  her  breast  was  wounded  sore  : 

She  stood,  and  weeped  much,  but  grieved  more. 

But  when  she  saw  the  dart  was  feathered,  said. 

Woe’s  me !  for  my  own  kind  hath  me  destroy’d  !” 

But  had  the  eagle  known  that  it  was  not  only  her  own  “  kind,”  but  her  own  oll- 
.^pring,  who  for  the  sake  of  winging  a  dart  to  wound  his  parent,  had  actually  plucked 
hitirself  to  death,  she  would  doubtless  have  weeped  and  grieved  more. 


39 


the  degree  of  the  orders.  At  the  same  time  we  maintain  that  a  third 
degree  of  ordination  is  perfectly  compatible  with  the  doctrine  of  two 
orders  if  the  term  “  order”  be  used  as  implying  divine  right.  This 
Mr.  M‘Caine  admits.  And  it  will  appear  still  more  clearly  if  we 
consider  the  nature  and  origin  of  ordination,  as  above  stated.  Lord 
King  maintains  that  bishops  and  presbyters,  in  the  primitive  church, 
were  the  same  order.  Yet  he  expressly  says  that  the  bishops,  when 
chosen  such  from  among  the  presbyters,  were  ordained,  as  bishops,  by- 
imposition  of  hands.  Constitution  and  Discipline  of  the  Primitive 
Church,  p.  49.  In  this  respect,  both  Mr.  Wesley’s  usage  and  ours 
exactly ’correspond'  with  that  of  the  primitive  church,  according  to 
Lord  King,  even  on  the  principle  of  two  orders. 

6.  The  extension  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  bishop,  in  consequence 
of  the  extension  of  the  church,  is  not  the  creating  of  any  new  office,  as 
we  have  shown  from  Stillingfleet,  and  certainly  cannot  make  it  less 
proper  that  he  should  be  solemnly  ordained  by  imposition  of  hands, 
and  furnished  with  suitable  credentials.  The  revival  of  such  an 
itinerant,  extensive,  personal  oversight  and  inspection,  is  the  revival 
of  the  apostolic  practice,  and,  as  Mr.  Wesley  says,  well  agrees  both 
with  their  practice,  and  with  their  writings. 

7.  The  idea  that  equals  cannot,  from  among  themselves,  constitute 
an  officer,  who,  as  an  officer,  shall  be  superior  to  any  of  those  by  whom 
he  was  constituted,  is  contradicted  by  all  experience  and  history,  both 
civil  and  ecclesiastical ;  and  equally  so  by  common  sense.  The  con¬ 
trary  is  too  plain  to  require  illustration.  It  should  be  remembered, 
too,  that  Dr.  Coke  was  ordained  a  superintendent  not  by  Mr.  Wesley 
only  but  by  four  presbyters ; — two  of  them  indisputably  acknowledged 
as  such  by  the  whole  of  the  church  of  England,  and  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  ;  and  all  of  them  by  us,  and  by  all  others,  both  in 
those  and  in  other  churches,  who  admit  the  validity  of  ordination  by 
presbyters,  in  such  an  exigency  as  that  in  which  Mr.  Whatcoat  and 
Mr.  Vasey  were  ordained  such.— It  is  to  be  remembered,  also,  that 
Dr.  Coke  was  afterwards  authoritatively  and  unanimously  received  m 
this  office,  by  the  body  of  preachers  over  whom  he  was  to  preside  ;  and 
that  all  these  acts,  in  the  peculiar  circumstances  in  which  Mr.  Wes¬ 
ley’s  advice  and  help  were  asked,  are  to  be  taken  together,  as  invest¬ 
ing  Dr.  Coke  with  his  ‘‘  Episcopal  authority”  among  us.  A  similar 
statement  might  be  made  with  respect  to  Mr.  Asbury,  only  substituting 
his  unanimous  election,  for  unanimous  reception.  These  church 
officers,  after  they  were  thus  constituted  and  commissioned,  were 
superior  as  our  officers,  in  the  actual  exercise  of  certain  executive 
powers  among  us,  to  any  individual  of  those  by  whom  they  were  con¬ 
stituted.  Even  Mr.  Wesley  could  not  actually  station  the  preachers 
in  America,  after  we  had  superintendents  of  our  own,  agreeably  to  his 
own  advice  ;  yet  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  could.  We  shall  hereafter 
prove  that  Mr.  Wesley  did  not  reserve  to  himself  even  the  appoint¬ 
ment  of  our  superintendents ;  and  that  neither  did  the  General  con¬ 
ference  of  1784  so  understand  him ;  nor  was  he,  in  consequence  ot 
any  act  of  theirs,  thereafter  to  exercise  this  power. 

We  turn  now  to  the  'preface  of  this  prayer  book. 

This  preface  is  signed  “.Tojin  Wesley,”  and  dated  “Bristol,  Sept, 


4a 

9,  1784, ’’--.only  seven  days  after  the  ordination  of  Dr.  Coke,  and 
was  plainly  intended  as  a  preface  to  the  lohole  hooL  In  the  first  para¬ 
graph  Mr.  Wesley  speaks  in  high  terms  of  the  ‘‘  Liturgy;^  or  Com¬ 
mon  Prayer  of  the  Church  of  England.”  He  then  states  that  he  had 
made  “  little  alteration”  in  this  edition  of  it,  except  omitting  most  of 
the  holy  days,  so  called  shortening  the  service  of  the  Lord’s  day; 
omitting  some  sentences  in  the  offices  of  baptism,  and  for  the  burial 
^the  dead;  and  leaving  out  many  of  ihe psalms,  and  parts  of  others. 
The  enurneration  of  those  particulars  proves  that  by  his  edition  of  the 
‘"Liturgy”  or  “  Common  Prayer,”  he  meant  the  whole  book,  with  all 
the  and/om5,  contained  in  it,  as  well  as  the  Sunday  service 

psalms.  With  this  evident  meaning,  he  says,  “The  following 
edition  of  it  I  recommend  to  our  societies  in  America.”  Now  this 
edition  contained  a  form  for  “the  ordination  oi superintendents'”  among 
us,  in  the  same  manner  ?Lsbishops  are  ordained  in  the  church  of  Eng¬ 
land ;  with  the  same  solemnities,  and  for  the  same  purposes ;  viz  ;  to 
preside  over  the  flock  of  Christ,  including  the  presbyters  and  deacons  ; 

^  others.  Now  does  it  comport  with  good  sense  to  say, 

that  Mr.  Wesley  recommended  the  form,  but  not  the  thing  which  that 
lorm  imports  ?  And  will  any  intelligent  man  pronounce  that  that  thing 
IS  not  an  Episcopal  order  of  ministers,  and  an  Episcopacy  'mfact,  by 
whatever  names  they  may  have  been  called  ?  This  point  is  so  plain 
that  we  are  really  ashamed  to  dwell  on  it. 

That  we  are  not  mistaken  in  the  comprehensive  import  of  the 
terms  Liturgy,”  and  “Common  Prayer,”  as  above  asserted  will  ap¬ 
pear  from  the  following  language  of  the  convention  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  by  which  the  liturgy  of  that  church  was  ratified,  on 
the  16th  of  Oct.  in  the  year  1789  ;  and  also  from  the  language  of 
bishops  White  and  Brownell. 

“  This  convention,  having  in  this  present  session  set  forth  ‘  A  book 

OF  COMMON  PRAYER  AND  ADMINISTRATION  OF  THE  SACRAMENTS  AND 
OTHER  RITES  AND  CEREMONIES  OF  THE  CHURCH,’  do  hereby  establish 
said  book :  and  they  declare  it  to  be  the  liturgy  of  this  church  ;  and 
require  that  it  be  received  as  such  by  all  the  members  of  the  same.” 

“  The  principal  act  of  this  session”  says  bishop  White,  in  his  Me¬ 
moirs  of  the  Church,  “  was  the  preparing  of  the  book  of  Common 
Erayer ,  as  now  the  established  Liturgy  of  the  church.” 

At  the  convention  of  1808,”  (says  bishop  Brownell,  in  the  intro¬ 
duction  to  ‘  the  Family  Prayer  Book,  or  book  of  Common  Prayer  and 
administration  of  the  sacraments,  and  other  rites  and  ceremonies  of 
the  church,’)  “thirty  hymns  were  added  to  the  Book  of  jjsalms  and 
hymns.  Since  which  time  no  changes  have  been  made  in  our  Liturgy.” 
All  which  proves  that  by  “  the  Liturgy,”  is  to  be  understood"  the 
whole  book  of  Common  Prayer,  with  all  the  forms,  rites,  ceremonies, 
orders,  offices,  and  adminstrations  therein  set  forth  and  recommended. 

A  writer  in  another  work  lately  suggested  an  inquiry  whether  our 
articles  of  religion  also  were  not  “  surreptitiously”  introduced  originally, 
and  imposed  on  us  by  the  bishops.  We  have  not  the  work  at  hand 
to  quote  verbatim,  but  give  the  sentiment  as  we  recollect  it. 

If  our  brother  will  look  into  this  prayer  book  of  1784,  he  will  find 
Qur  articles  of  religion,  abridged  from  the  thirty-nine  articles  of  the 


41 


church  of  England  by  Mr.  Wesley,  printed  and  recommended  by 
him  in  this  book,  and  adopted  as  Mr.  M’Caine  admits  this  edition  of 
the  prayer  book  was,  by  the  conference  of  1784.  It  is  true  the  arti¬ 
cles  are  not  named  in  the  preface.  But  will  any  one  contend  that 
therefore  Mr.  Wesley  did  not  mean  to  recommend  them  to  us,  although 
they  are  a  part  of  the  hook  which  he  prepared,  and  printed,  and  sent, 
and  recommended  ?  Yet  most  certainly  it  would  be  just  as  rational 
to  assert  //m,  as  that  he  did  not  mean  to  recommend  to  us  the  insti¬ 
tution  of  an  Episcopal  order  of  ministers,  although  he  did  prepare,  and 
print,  and  send,  and  recommend  to  us  a  solemn  form  for  the  setting 
apart  and  ordaining  of  such  an  order. 

In  this  prayer  book  however,  but  twenty-four  articles  will  be  found ; 
whereas  we  now  have  twenty-five.  The  additional  one  inserted  by 
the  conference  of  1784,  is  that  now  numbered  the  twenty-third,  of  the 
rulers  of  the  United  States  of  America.”  In  the  Sunday  service  Mr. 
Wesley  inserted  the  form  of  “  a  prayer  for  the  supreme  rulers  of  these 
United  States.”  But  it  is  probable  that  he  did  not  consider  himself 
sufficiently  well  acquainted  with  our  civil  institutions,  at  that  early 
period,  to  frame  an  “article”  under  this  head;  and  hence  the  addi¬ 
tion  of  this  article,  by  the  conference  of  1784,  in  conformity  with  the 
prayer  in  the  Sunday  service. 

That  no  investigation  of  this  sort,  however  strict,  if  conducted  with 
a  spirit  of  candour  and  fairness,  can  ever  bring  any  stain  on  the  fair 
escutcheon  of  our  fathers,  we  are  well  persuaded.  But  if,  coming 
from  such  sources,  the  challenging  of  such  inquiries  be  connected 
with  darkling  insinuations  of  imposition  and  fraud,  it  cannot  fail  to 
furnish  occasion  to  the  ignorant,  the  disaffected,  the  bigotted,  and  the 
malevolent,  who  seek  occasion  against  the  defenceless  manes  of  our 
venerated  fathers ;  at  whose  feet,  while  on  earth,  it  would  have  been 
an  honour  to  any  of  us,  their  sons,  to  sit ;  and  may  yet  be  in  heaven. 
On  this  ground,  and  on  this  only,  the  time,  and  place,  and  manner  of 
these  things,  we  cannot  but  regret. 

The  Prayer  Book  of  1784,  was  brought  to  America  in  sheets.  In 
those  copies  of  it  which  have  come  under  our  inspection,  the  Minutes 
of  the  General  Conference  of  1784  are  bound  with  it.  The  proper 
place  and  weight  of  those  Minutes,  in  this  argument,  will  be  con¬ 
sidered  in  the  ensuing  section,  in  which  we  shall  discuss  the  Prayer 
Book  of  1786. 


Section  VIII. —  The  Prayer  Book  of  1786. 

This  Prayer  Book  is  entitled,  “  The  Sunday  Service  of  the  Method¬ 
ists  in  the  United  States  of  America,  with  other  occasional  services.” 

- It  was  printed  London,  1786,  at  the  press  of  “  Frys  and  Couch- 

man.”  In  this  edition  we  find  the  twenty-five  articles  of  religion, 
including  that  of  “  The  rulers  of  the  United  States  of  America;” — 
and  also  “The  General  Minutes  of  the  Conferences  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  America.” — Those  Minutes  were  first  printed  in 
Philadelphia  by  Charles  Cist,  in  1785,  and  were  bound  up  with  the 
volume  of  the  Prayer  Book  which  was  brought  from  England,  in 


42 


sheets,  in  1784.  But  in  the  edition  of  1786,  they  are  regularly  printed 
as  a  part  of  the  book.  It  is  demonstrable,  on  the  face  of  the  book, 
that  the  Minutes,  as  they  appear  in  this  edition,  could  not  have  been 
printed  in  America,  and  the  rest  of  the  book  in  England.  This  any 
printer  will  attest. 

We  have  now  before  us  a  small  volume,  entitled  “Minutes  of  seve¬ 
ral  Conversations  between  the  Rev;  Mr.  Wesley,  and  others,  from  the 
year  1744,  to  the  year  1789. — London  ;  printed  by  G.  Paramore,  North 
Green,  Worship  Street,  and  sold  by  G.  Whitfield,  at  the  Chapel,  City 
Road,  and  at  all  the  Methodist  preaching  houses  in  town  and 

country.  1791.” - By  a  careful  comparison  of  these  Minutes  with 

those  of  the  General  Conference  of  1784,  it  will  be  found  that  the 
latter  are  nearly  a  copy  of  the  former  so  far  as  they  had  then  been 
drawn  up  and  published  by  Mr.  Wesley ;  with  some  occasional  altera¬ 
tions,  adapted  to  our  circumstances  in  this  country ;  together  with  the 
insertion  of  some  few  original  Minutes.  There  is  plain  internal  evi¬ 
dence  in  the  two  publications,  that  the  Minutes  previously  prepared  by 
Mr.  Wesley,  were  made  the  basis  of  those  of  the  General  Conference 
of  1784,  and  that  the  latter  were  drawn  up  from  the  former,  with  such 
alterations,  abridgments,  modifications,  or  additions,  as  that  confer¬ 
ence  thought  necessary.  And  such  weare  in  formed  wasthe  fact.  These 
Minutes,  thus  prepared  from  Mr.  Wesley’s,  were  the  ground  work  of 
our  “  Form  of  Discipline.” 

The  General  Conference  of  1784,  commenced  its  session  on  the 
24th  of  December  ;  and  closed  on  the  1st  of  January,  1785.  On  the 
3d  of  January  Dr.  Coke  left  Baltimore.  From  the  8th  to  the  19th  he 
was  in  Philadelphia,  and  there  published  the  Minutes  of  that  confer¬ 
ence,  the  title  of  which  was,  “  The  General  Minutes  of  the  Confer¬ 
ences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America.”  And  in  the 
answer  to  the  third  question,  it  was  declared  that  they  had  formed 
themselves  into  an  “  Episcopal  Church.”  See  Dr.  (’oke’s  Journal,  of 
the  above  dates,  and  January  22,  1785. — On  the  2d  of  June  following. 
Dr.  Coke  sailed  from  Baltimore  for  England,  and  was  present  at  the 
ensuing  British  Conference,  which  commenced  in  London,  on  the 
26th  of  July,  of  that  year.  His  name  is  signed  first  to  an  instrument 
which  was  drawn  up  at  that  conference,  and  which  bears  date  July 
30,  1785,  and  may  be  seen  in  the  British  Minutes  of  that  year.  Mr. 

Wesley  was  also  present  at  that  conference. - Now  let  the  reader 

put  all  these  facts  together,  and  then  candidly  consider  the  following 
questions : 

1.  If  Dr.  Coke  .and  Mr.  Asbury  were  conscious  that  they  had  been 
guilty  of  duplicity,  imposition,  and  fraud,  or  of  violating  Mr.  Wesley’s 
instructions,  in  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Churchy 
is  it  probable  that  they  would  immediately  after  have  printed  and  pub¬ 
lished  these  Minutes  with  this  title,  and  with  an  explicit  statement  of 
what  had  been  done,  and  thus  have  exposed  their  acts  in  the  face  of 
Mr.  Wesley,  and  of  the  world?  Is  it  probable  that  Dr.  (>oke  particu¬ 
larly,  who  had  the  Minutes  printed,  would  have  done  this,  knowing 
that  he  was  so  soon  to  return  to  England  ? 

2.  Is  it  not  rationally  presumable  that  a  copy  of  these  Minutes  had 
reached  Mr.  Wesley,  in  the  interval  between  their  publication  in  the 


4a 


'imddie  of  January,  and  the  last  of  July  of  that  year,  betbre  the  close 
of  the  British  conference  1 

3.  Is  it  not  at  least  certain  that  Mr.  Wesley  must  have  felt  sufficient 
interest  in  this  matter,  to  have  required  from  Dr.  Coke  a  particular 
account  of  what  had  been  done  in  America  ? 

4.  Is  it  not  presumable  that  Dr.  Coke  carried  with  him  a  copy  of 
the  printed  Minutes  ? 

5.  Is  it  not  presumable  that  Mr,  Wesley  would  have  inquired  of  him 
whether  minutes  were  not  taken,  knowing  our  custom  to  take  minutes 
at  all  our  conferenc  s,  and  also  have  requested  to  see  them? 

6.  Could  Dr.  Coke  have  declined  to  show  them,  or  have  concealed 
from  Mr.  Wesley  what  had  been  done,  without  the  grossest  duplicity, 
and  positive  falsehood  ? 

7.  Is  It  probable  that  Dr.  *  oke  was  not  only  so  knavish,  but  so 
stupid,  as  to  hazard  his  reputation,  character,  standing,  and  even  his 
salvation,  thus  cheaply  and  foolishly,  when  he  must  have  anticipated 
with  certainty  that  Mr.  Wesley  would,  at  some  future  time,  obtain  a 
knowledge  of  what  had  been  done,  if  he  did  not  then  ? 

8.  If  Dr.  Coke  could  have  been  guilty  of  such  baseness,  is  it  not 
probable  that  Mr.  Wesley  would  have  received  information  of  it  from 
some  other  quarter ;  at  least  before  his  death ;  which  did  not  take 
place  till  nearly  six  years  afterwards  ? 

9.  If  Mr.  Wesley  had  ever  discovered  that  Dr.  Coke  had  so  grossly 
betrayed  his  trust,  and  imposed  both  on  him  and  on  us,  could  he  have 
continued  afterwards  so  highly  to  esteem  and  honour  him,  as  he  no¬ 
toriously  did,  even  to  the  day  of  his  death  ? 

We  know  that  Mr.  M‘Caine  has  represented  that  Mr.  Wesley  did 
punish  Dr.  Coke  for  his  proceedings  at  this  period,  by  leaving  his 
name  off  the  minutes  for  one  year.  But  this  is  an  entire  mistake.  At 
this  very  conference  of  1785,  Dr.  Coke’s  name  appears  in  the  British 
minutes  in  London,  next  after  John  and  Charles  Wesley  themselves. 
In  1786  he  was  appointed  by  Mr.  Wesley,  as  Mr.  Crowther  and  Mr. 
Myles  both  state,  to  visit  the  societies  in  British  America.  And  his 
name  appears  in  the  minutes  published  by  J\lr.  Wesley  in  the  Arminiaii 
Magazine  for  that  year,  under  the  head  “  America.’^  The  reason  why 
it  did  not  appear  for  that  year  in  London,  as  usual,  was  probably 
because  it  was  not  expected  that  he  would  return  to  England  till  the 
ensuing  conference,  as  we  know  he  did  not.  Yet  previously  to  his 
leaving  England  for  America,  he  attended  and  presided  in  the  Irish 
conference  in  the  year  1786,  by  Mr.  Wesley’s  direction,  and  as  his  re¬ 
presentative.  See  Myles’  Chronological  History.  Does  this  look  like 
being  then  “  under  censure  ?” 

In  1787  and  1788,  he  was  again  stationed  in  London  with  John 
and  Charles  Wesley.  In  1789  his  name  was  left  off  the  minutes  ;  but 
for  reasons,  as  we  shall  hereafter  show,  which  had  no  shadow  of  con¬ 
nexion  either  with  his  proceedings  at  the  conference  of  1784,  or  with 
his  assuming  the  title  of  bishop,  as  Mr.  M‘Caine  asserts.  In  1790  he 
was  again  stationed  in  London  with  John  and  Charles  Wesley ;  and  in 
1791,  at  the  conference  succeeding  Mr.  Wesley’s  death,  Dr.  Coke 
stood  first  in  London. 

In  February  1789,  Mr.  Wesley  made  his  last  will  and  testament. 


-44 


In  that  will  he  constituted  five  important  trusteeships,  in  all  of  which  ' 

Th»f  w  u  m'  ■"  ‘hat  he  named  him  second. 

That  Will  Mr.  Wesley  kept  by  him  for  two  years,  and  left  it  unaltered 
to  the  day  of  his  death.  It  is  surely  needless  to  say  more  to  prove  the 
high  estimation  m  which,  to  his  last  moments,  he  continued  to  hold 
Dr.  Coke.  Not  could  any  testimony  be  more  honourable  to  the 
memory  of  Dr.  Coke  than  such  an  one  as  this,  from  a  man  of  so  much 
intelligence,  and  close  and  accurate  observation,  as  Mr.  Wesley ;  and 
who  had  means  of  Inoumg  Dr.  Coke  certainly  ten  thousand  times 
more  ample  than  Mr.  M‘Caine  has  ever  had. 

decl^ivinl^'  England  in  1785,  had  succeeded  in 

deceiving  Mr.  Wesley,  and  in  concealing  from  him  the  proceedings  in 
America,  is  it  at  least  probable  that  he  would  have  hazarded  his  own 

^eprintin^-,  in  London,  the  minutes  of 
^e  conference  of  1784,  only  one  year  after  his  return,  and  while  Mr. 
Wesley  was  on  the  spot?  Yet  this  he  did  do,  retaining  in  those 

hlffthaT  *i‘  Episcopal  Church,”  a^nd  declar¬ 

ing  that  our  societies  here  had  been  formed  into  an  “£>piscopal  Church.' ’ 

mi'nnief  did  actudly  see  these 

minutes,  or  not.  This  we  will  consider  presently.  But  whether  Dr. 

Coke,  on  the  supposition  that  he  had  so  grossly  imposed  on  Mr.  Wes- 

evL^'to  as 

Tondln  4  republished  in 

l^ondon,  during  Mr.  Wesley  s  life  time  ? 

11.  Is  it  probable  that  this  edition  of  the  Prayer  Book,  with  these 
minutes  m  it,  after  being  thus  published  in  London,  should  have  con¬ 
tinued  in  existence  five  years,  till  the  death  of  Mr.  Wesley,  without 
ever  com, ng  to  bis  knowledge?  Such  a  complicated  machinery  of 
fraud  and  villany  must  have  been  kept  in  operation,  on  the  part  of  Dr 
^ke;  such  a  combination  and  collusion  of  all  parties  against  Mr! 
Wesley,  must  have  been  carried  on  for  so  long  a  time ;  and  such  sur¬ 
prising  ignorance  must  have  existed  on  his  part,  for  the  accomplish- 
SuHty  confess,  beyond  the  reach  of  our  highest 

Myw**^!****  crcumstances  we  feel  warranted  in  asserting  that 
Mr.  Wesley  must  have  been  acquainted  with  these  minutes,  and  con¬ 
sequently  did  know  that  the  societies  here  had  been  formed  into  an 

CWer^  A  ‘‘'T*'®  Methodist  Episcopal 

hurch.  And  if  he  did  know  it,  and  did  not  promptly  and  explicit 
state  his  disapprobation  of  it,  as  we  afiirm  he  never  did,  we  have  a 
right  to  regard  it  as  conclusive  proof  of  his  sanction 

t785‘r.‘Krl‘!ir\f™viF?  Arminian  Magazine  for 

1785  published  by  Mr.  Wesley  himself,  we  find  the  following  minutes : 

iTua  from  the  minutes  of  a  conference  held  at  London,  July 

785,  between  the  Rev.  John  Wesley  and  others.”  In  this  extract, 
alter  giving  the  stations  of  the  preachers  in  England,  Mr.  Wesley  in 
a  distinct  place,  adds  the  stations  in  America..  In  these  Thomas 
Loke  and  h rancis  Asbury  are  mentioned  as  Superintendents;  and  the 
names  of  all  the  elders  who  had  been  elected  and  ordained  at  the  coa- 
.hence  of  1784  are  then  severally  stated,  together  with  those  of  Mr 
whatcoat  and  Mr.  Vasev. 


u  45 

ill  connexion  with  these  minutes,  and  in  answer  to  the  quesuou 
What  is  the  state  of  our  societies  in  North  America?”  Mr.  Wesley 
inserted  also  in  this  place,  the  letter  “  To  Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  Asbury,  and 
our  Brethren  in  North  America as  showing  their  state ;  and  on 
doing  so,  makes  this  remarkable  note : — “  If  any  one  is  minded  to 
dispute  concerning  djocesan  Episcopacy,  he  may  dispute.  But  1  have 
^  better  work.” — See  Arminian  Magazine,  vol.  viii,  pp.  600-602.  From 

the  terms  and  connexion  of  this  note,  it  is  highly  probable  that  he  had 
been  charged  with  having  instituted  such  an  Episcopacy  in  America, 
and  refused  to  dispute  about  it ;  preferring  rather  to  go  on  with  his 
work.  But  if  he  knew  that  he  had  done  no  such  thing,  and  intended 
no  such  thing ; — and  much  more,  if  he  had  been  indignant  at  such  an 
idea,  as  Mr.  M‘Caine  would  represent,  he  would  simply  and  flatly  have 
denied  the  charge,  and  repelled  the  statement. — And  with  this  charge 
against  him  too,  there  is  the  greater  certainty  that  it  was  then  known 
there  through  Dr.  Colce,  or  the  minutes  of  the  conference  of  1784,  that 
such  an  Episcopacy  had  actually  been  established  in  America.* 

Assuming  the  fact  then,  that  Mr.  Wesley  did,  at  some  time,  and  in 
some  way,  become  acquainted  with  the  acts  and  proceedings  of  Dr. 
Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury,  and  of  the  conference  of  1784,  in  the  organi¬ 
zation  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  we  ask,  where  is  the  evi¬ 
dence  that  he  ever  disavowed  them  1 — or  ever  declared  that  in  so  doing 
they  had  gone  contrary  to  his  instructions  ?  Where  is  the  evidence 
that  he  ever  objected  to  that  title  of  the  church,  or  to  the  terms 
“Episcopal,”  and  “Episcopacy?”  Where  is  the  evidence  that  he  ever 
protested  or  remonstrated  against  either  of  these,  or  against  our  adop-r 
tion  of  the  “  Episcopal”  form  of  church  government,  under  the  direc¬ 
tion  of  superintendents,  elders,  and  deacons?  If  Mr.  Wesley  knew 
that  all  this  had  been  done  “surreptitiously”  and  fraudulently ;  and 
much  more,  if  he  knew  that  it  had  been  imposed  and  “  saddled”  on 
the  societies  against  his  intentions,  and  under  the  cloak  and  sanction 
of  his  name,  would  he  not  have  declared  it  ?  Would  it  not  have  been 
his  duty  to  declare  it  ?  and  may  we  not  be  well  assured  that  he  would 
have  done  so,  from  the  plainness  and  the  decision  with  which  we  kno\y 
that  he  was  accustomed  to  speak ;  and  particularly  at  a  time  when  he 
was  personally  charged  and  pressed  by  his  brother  Charles  and  others, 
for  having  thus  “  acted  as  a  bishop,”  as  we  knov/  he  was.  Yet  we 
deny  that  one  syllable  of  such  evidence  has  ever  yet  been  produced. 
To  the  terms  “  Episcopal”  and  “  Episcopacy,” — to  our  being  called 
the  “  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,”  or  having  adopted  the  “  Episco- 
r  pal”  form  of  church  government,  Mr.  Wesley  never  did  object;  and 

we  challenge  the  production  of  one  particle  of  testimony  to  show  that 
he  ever  did.— What  Mr.  M‘Caine  has  said  with  regard  to  his  letter  to 
bishop  Asbury,  respecting  the  title  ‘‘  bishop,”  we  shall  distinctly  dis¬ 
cuss  in  another  place,  and  shall  prove  that  \t  does  not  in  the  slightest 
degree  impugn  what  we  have  now  asserted.  .  j-  • 

k  But  Mr.  M^Caine  says,  p.  17,  “  The  circumstance”  of  this  edition 

of  the  Prayer  Book  “  being  printed  by  Frys  and  Couchman,  and  nqt 

*  A  diocesan  Episcopacy  is  simply  an  Episcopacy  extending  beyond  the  supeVin- 
>  endence  of  a  single  congregation.  A  dioccss  is  the  circuit  of  a  bishop’s  jurisaic? 
tion,  whether  large  or  small, 

6 


V 


by  Mr.  Wesley,  renders  the  whole  affair  suspicious.’' — That  “  it  was 
printed  for  somebody— perhaps  for  Dr.  Coke,  who  in  1786  was  under 
censure  by  Mr.  Wesley  for  the  address  he  presented  to  general  Wash¬ 
ington,” — “  and  contains  an  article  of  religion  not  contained  in  Mr. 
Wesley’s  Prayer  Book.” 

It  is  really  surprising  with  what  uniformity  Mr.  M‘Caine  persists  in 
the  plainest  errors ; — familiarizing  his  mind  with  “  suspicion”  in  the 
utter  absence  of  proof; — withholding  circumstances  which  would 
explain  what  he  wraps  in  “  mystery — and  exposing  himself  to  a 
severity  of  criticism,  from  which,  did  justice  to  our  subject  and  to  the 
dead  permit,  we  would  fain  forbear. 

The  address  to  Washington  we  shall  notice  hereafter.  The  article  of 
religion  contained  in  the  Prayer  Book  of  1786  which  was  not  in  that  of 
1784,  is  that  now  numbered  the  23d,— “  Of  the  Rulers  of  the  United 
vStates  of  America,”  which  had  been  adopted  by  theGeneral  Conference 
of  1784,  and  was  most  properly  inserted  in  the  ensuing  edition  of  the 
Prayer  Book  in  1786.— Had  Mr.  M'Came  stated  this,  all  mystery 
respecting  the  addition  of  this  article  would  have  been  dissipated. — It 
Avas  not  necessary  that  this  Prayer  Book  should  have  been  printed  at 
Mr.  Wesley’s  press.  It  ivas  not  printed  for  Mr.  Wesley,  nor  for  the 
Methodists  in  England ;  but  for  those  in  the  United  States,  of  whom 
Dr.  Coke  was  a  superintendent. — Dr.  Coke  was  possessed  of  an  ample 
fortune,  and  with  a  liberality  amounting  almdst 40  profuseness,  devoted 
his  fortune  to  such  expenses,  and  to  any  others' which  he  believed  cal¬ 
culated  to  serve  the  cause  in  which  he  was  engaged.  He  had  pro¬ 
cured  the  printing  of  the  minutes  previously  in  Philadelphia,  and  now 
published  another  edition  of  this  Prayer  Book,  with  the  minutes  and 
articles  of  religion  included,  for  the  Methodists  in  America.  Frys  and 
Couchman  had  been  in  the  habit  of  printing  for  Mr.  Wesley,  and  were 
the  printers  of  the  second  volume  of  the  Arminian  Magazine.  And 
Ave  can  perceive  nothing  in  this  whole  affair  calculated  to  render  it  in 
the  lept  degree  “  suspicious”  to  any  but  a  mind  habituated  to  a 
suspiciousness  which  spares  not  the  characters  even  of  men  who 
have  been  among  the  brightest  ornaments  of  the  Christian  church,  and 
as  distinguished  for  their  high  sense  of  honour  and  propriety,  as  for 
their  liberality  and  deep  devotion. 

Mr.  M‘Caine  adds,  “  After  the  publication  of  the  Prayer  Book  of 
1786,  a  rule  was  passed  in  the  conference,  that  no  book  should  be 
sold  among  his  societies”  [Mr.  Wesley’s]  “  which  was  not  printed  at 
his  press.  But  Avhether  this  rule  was  passed  with  special  reference  to 
the  Prayer  Book  of  1786  or  not,”  he  adds,  “  we  cannot  say.”  That  is 
a  Prayer  Book  for  the  Methodists  “  in  the  United  States  of  America,” 
with  a  prayer  for  *Hhe  rulers  of  the  United  States  of  America,”  and 
an  article  of  religion  acknowledging  these  rulers,  and  Mr.  M‘Caine 
could  not  say  Avhether  it  was  not  intended  for  sale  among  the  societies 
in  England;  and  Avhether  Mr.  Wesley  and  the  British  conference  did 
not  find  it  necessary  gravely  to  pass  a  resolution  prohibiting  the  sale 
of  it  there  ! 

But  on  this  point  Mr  M‘Caine  has  suffered  his  speculations  to  carrv 
him  beyond  his  mark.  He  “  cannot  say”  that  this  resolution  was  not 
“passed  Avith  special  reference  to  the  Prayer  Book  of  1786.”  If  it 


47 


were,  Mr.  Wesley  must  have  had  knowledge  of  that  Prayer  Book.  Anu 
if  he  had,  then  all  the  inferences  which  we  have  drawn  above  are  arnpl\ 
confirmed,  and  stand  in  full  force. 


Section  IX. — Bishop  Ashury. 

Our  reverence  for  the  name  and  for  the  character  of  Mr.  Wesley, 
is  unfeigned  and  profound.  We  have  never  felt  free,  however  to 
claim  for  him  absolute  infallibility  ;  or  an  incapableness  of  being  led, 
on  any  occasion,  or  in  any  circumstances,  to  use  even  too  strong  an 

^  That  his  letter  to  Mr.  Asbury,  on  suffering  himself  to  be  called 
bishop  contains  expressions  too  severe,  will  be  admitted,  we  think,  by 
his  warmest  friends.  Mr.  M’Caine,  indeed,  rejoices  over  it,  as  one 
who  has  found  great  spoil.  He  seems  delighted  with  it  \et  the 
discerning  reader  will  perceive  that,  after  all,  in  summing  up  in  his 
‘‘conclusion,”  he  has  wholly  misrepresented  its  import.  Let  tfte 
name  of  bishop  and  the  Episcopal  office  as  it  now  exists  among  us 
says  he,  “  be  put  away  for  ever.  In  doing  this,  we  shall 
Mr.  Wesley’s  advice  to  Mr.  Asbury.  For  my  sake,  for  God  s  sake, 
for  Christ’s  sake,  put  a  full  end  to  this.”  To  what  To 
copal  office  We  deny  that  Mr.  M'esley  ever  advised  any  such 
thing,  or  ever  meant,  dr  intended,  so  to  be  understood.  It  was  to  the 
term  “bishop”  solely  that  he  objected,  from  the  associations  ordmarily 
connected  with  it  in  the  public  mind,  especially  in  England,  io  the 
“  office”  he  never  did  object ;  nor  to  the  terms  ‘  Episcopacy,  or 
“  Episcopal.”  The  office  was  of  his  own  creation,  and  he  intended  it 
to  be  perpetuated.  And  will  Mr.  M’Caine  contend  that  if  the  0®^®* 
as  it  now  exists,  or  was  originally  instituted,  had  been  continued  from  the 
beginning,  as  it  was  for  several  years,  with  the  title  of  supermtendeiit, 
thithe  church  would  have  been  any  less  Episcopal,  in  form  or  in 
fact,  or  its  superintendents  any  less  bishops  1  The  logic  by  which  this 
should  be  made  out  would  be  a  curiosity.*  ^ 

That  our  views  of  this  letter,  correspond  with  those  of  Mr.  Wesley  s 
biographer,  and  his  intimate  companion  and  friend,  the  venerable 

♦  On  Dr.  Coke’s  return  to  England  after  the  organization  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  church,  he  was  attacked  by  an  anonymous  writer,  supposed  to  have 
£  Mr  Charles  Wesley.  In  his  def/nce  he  affirmed,  that  m  h.s  inoceedmgs  m 
America,  “he  did  nothing  but  by  a  delegated 

Wesley”  This  he  affirmed  publicly,  under  Mr.  Wesleys  eye  and  at  a  tune 
when  fhere  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  Mr.  Wesley  had 

conference  of  1784  “On  this  ground,”  says  Mr.  Drew,  it  cannot  be  denied, 
that  his  plea  of  delegated  authority  is  valid,  Mr.  Wesley  and  himself  being  identi- 

^^Mn  WcSine  a^^n^s^  p."^  16,  that  m  the  progre^ofhis  ® 

found,  which  unequivocally  declare  his”  [Mr.  Wesley’s,]  disappro  ^  ®  .  . 

proceedings  of  the  conference”  [of  1784,]  “in  relation  to  every  thing 
to  Episcopacy.”  This  assertion  we  wholly  deny,  ^ot  one  such  docurnent  is 
found  in  his  whole  work.  The  mere  title  of  bishop,  to  which  Mr.  e  y  , 
ject,  was  not  the  act  of  the  conference  of  1784  ;  nor  is  it  at  all  necessary  to  the 
existence  of  “  Episcopacy,”  which  might  exist  as  well  without  as  with  it ;  and  did 
.<o  exist  for  wn-eral  rears. 


> 


4S. 

Henry  Moore,  who  gave  publicity  to  the  letter,  will  appear  from  tiu 
following  quotations. 

Mr.  Wesley,”  says  Mr.  Moore,  well  knew  the  difference  be¬ 
tween  the  office  and  the  title.  He  knew  and  felt  the  arduous  duties 
and  the  high  responsibility  which  attaches  to  the  one,  and  the  com¬ 
parative  nothingness  of  the  other.”  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  ii,  p.  278. 

y  He  gave  to  those  E‘7r<(r>co‘:roj,”  [Episcopoi,  bishops,]  “  whom  he  or¬ 
dained,  the  modest,  but  highly  expressive  title  of  supermtendents,  and 
desired  that  no  other  might  be  used.”  Ib.  p.  280.  His  objection  to 
the  title  bishop,”  Mr.  Moore  adds,  arose  from  his  hatred  of  all 
display.” 

Mr.  Asbury  was  of  opinion  that  the  unpleasant  expressions”  in 
some  of  the  letters  which  he  received  from  his  venerable  friend,  were 
“  occasioned  by  the  misrepresentations  of  others.”  Yet  he  bore  them 

T*7  which  has  obtained  for  him  the  commendation  of 

Mr.  Wesley  s  own  biographer,  who  was  satisfied  that  Mr.  Asbury 
was  not  convinced  that  he  had  acted  wrong,  and  lost  none  of  his 
veneration  for  his  father  in  the  gospel  [Mr.  Wesley,]  on  this  occasion.” 
ii  indeed,  that  Mr.  Moore  himself  was  of  opinion  that 

Mr.  Wesley,  in  this  affair,  had  expressed  himself  too  strongly,  and 
rather  inconsistently  with  his  former  admissions.  “  But  did  he  not,” 
says  Mr.  Moore,  upon  this  occasion,  a  little  forget  what  he  had  writ¬ 
ten  in  his  address  to  the  societies  in  America,  after  their  separation 
from  the  mother  country  :  ‘  They  are  now  at  full  liberty  simply  to 
lollow  the  Scriptures  and  the  primitive  church ;  and  we  judge  it  best 
that  they  should  stand  fast  in  the  liberty  wherewith  God  has  so 
strangely  made  them  free.’  But  the  association  in  his  mind,  between 
the  assumed  title  and  the  display  connected  with  it  in  the  later  ages 
of  the  church,  was  too  strong.  He  could  not,  at  that  moment,  sepa¬ 
rate  the  plain  laborious  bishops  of  the  American  societies,  where  there 
is  no  legal  establishment,  from  the  dignified  prelates  of  the  miffhtv 
empire  of  Great  Britain.  ^ 

“  That  our  brethren  who  are  in  that  office,”  continues  Mr.  Moore, 
bishops,  I  have  no  doubt  at  all :  nor  do  I  wish 
that  the  title  should  be  relinquished,  as  it  is  grown  into  use,  and  is 
known  by  every  person  in  the  United  States,  to  designate  men  dis¬ 
tinguished  only  by  their  simplicity,  and  abundant  labours.”  Life  of 
Wesley,  vol.  ii,  p.  286-7. 

These  extracts  are  full  to  our  purpose,  and  surely  have  as  much 
weight  as  any  thing  that  has  been  said  by  Mr.  M’Caine. 

At  the  British  conference  held  in  Liverpool,  in  1820,  we  heard  the 
profoundly  ^arned  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  and  that  most  able  and  eloquent, 
divine,  the  Rev.  Richard  Watson,  express  themselves  publicly  before 
the  conference,  in  relation  to  our  Episcopacy,  to  the  same  effect,  as  a 
clmracte^^  ^  scriptural  Episcopacy,  of  the  most  genuine  and  apostolical 

Mr.  M  Caine  protests  against  loading  the  name  and  memory  of  Mr. 
Wesley  with  the  obloquy  of  intending  the  Episcopal  form  of  church 
government  for  the  American  societies,  while  he  so  strongly  opposed 
the  use  of  the  title  bishop.  But  we  put  the  question  to  every  man  of 
candonr  :  Did  not  Mr.  Wesley  recommend  and  institute  for  the 


4.9 

Aiiierican  societies  a  general  superintendency,  by  ministers  solemnly 
set  apart  for  the  purpose,  with  imposition  of  hands  and  prayer,  and  all 
the  usual  solemnities  of  ordination,  and  pos^ssing  the  powers  of 
ordination  and  all  others  usually  considered  Episcopal .  And  will 
Tny  man  deny  that  such  a  form  of  government  would  have  been  Epis¬ 
copal  and-sLh  general  superintendents,  bishops,  though  the  title 

r  “i-  T  'f  “d 

,nWect  and  certainly  considered  the  assertion  of  it  as  far  from  load- 

ingVr’  Wesley’s  name  or  character  with  obloquy.  We  av^er  then, 
thft  Mr.  Wesley  did  intend  the  “  Episcopacy,  for  the  Ame¬ 

rican  societies  Lt  not  the  title  bishop.  We  do  not  say  he 
ntended  it  That  is  a  term  used  by  Mr.  M’Caine.  not  by  us  There 
warneither  secret  nor  “mystery”  in  it.  Mr.  Wesley  plainly  and 
openly,  declared  it,  and  solemnly  confirmed  it  by  his  act  and  deed, 
attested  by  his  hand  and  seal,  and  published  fo  ‘y  world. 

We  have  maintained  the  position  that  Mr.  Wesfoy  did  infc, 
tenT  and  recommend  for  the^merican  Somers  the  Episcopal  fom 
of  church  Government.  Mr.  M’Caine  admits  that  Dr.  Coke,  Mr. 
Asbury  and  our  fathers,  so  asserted.  If  so,  then  he  must  also  admit 
Lt  they  so  understood  Mr.  Wesley  :  and  in  that  case 
blamed  L  acting  and  speaking  according  to  their 
if  he  will  not  admit  this,  then  he  must  charge  them  either  with  a 
“mysterious”  stupidity,  or  with  knowingly  asserting  wilful  felsehoods, 

and^“  surreptitiously”  introducing,  for  the  ®‘HeTthe 

tion,  a  form  of  government  “  imposed  upon  the  societies  mder  the 
sanction  of  Mr.  Wesley’s  name,”  though  they  themselves  did  not  un¬ 
derstand  Mr.  Wesley  to  intend  or  to  recommend  any  such  thing. 
Yet  X  M’Catae  says  (p.  56,)  that  Mr.  Asbury  “  was  a  great  wise, 
lod  and  nsefol  Ste?  of  tie  Lord  Jesus  Christ  haring  few  to 
equal’  him.”  How  is  all  this  to  be  reconciled  1  And  if  we  believe  all 
that  Mr.  M’Caine  has  either  directly  imputed  to  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr. 
Asbury  or  plainly  enough  insinuated,  of  their  fraudulent  practices, 
for  the^concealmeit  and  the  establishment  of  their  forgeries  and  im¬ 
positions  who  can  envy  either  their  wisdom,  or  their  goodness. 

Mr.  M’Caine  seems  determined,  in  fact,  to  involve  the  whole  of  the 
proceedings  of  those  times,  in  a  charge  of  disingenuousness  and  du¬ 
plicity,  irreconcileable  with  either  wisdom  or  goodness  ^h  *8 

could^spring  from  nothing  but  corrupt  and  bad  motives.  ‘"oeed 
he  says^p  36  ‘  There  is  a  mystery  hanging  over  the  whole  of  the  pro- 
ceeding’s^of  those  times  if  there  is  not  a  studied  obscurity  and  evasion 
in  the  Lords  of  the  church.”  And  he  does  stop  shon  of  msmu- 
ating,  if  not  of  roundly  asserting,  that  records  and  dates  were  altered 
and  ^falsified  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  same  base  purpose  . 

*  When  the  title  “bishop”  was  foWo^uced  into  the 

"'Mr!  M’tSnHa;:  rp!t:f ‘^lirrso'nSeXT'rLaLble,  /at  - 

Wesiey’sname  was  hft  mt  ““'XXs™fSVeXinu^^^  1785.”.  vk 

Now  he  had  just  said,  (p.  36,)  his  name  was  lei 

the  title  bishop  was  not  introduced  into  the  minutes  rui  i/o, 

sistency  in  the  course  of  two  pages  ? 


Alas !  what  a  friend  have  the  venerable  dead  found  in  Mr.  M'Caine  ! 
He  has  great  veneration"  for  their  memory!  Yet  while  he  salutes 
he  stabs  them.  He  kisses,  and  straightway  leads  them  to  be 
crucified. 

If  by  such  means  they  did  indeed  introduce  into  the  church  an 

illegitimate  Episcopacy,”  hazarding  everything  fair  and  honourable 
for  the  sake  of  the  title  of  “  Methodist  bishops,”  they  must  indeed,  to 
use  Mr.  M‘Caine’s  language,  have  been  “strongly  infected  with ’an 
Episcopal  mania.”  And  nothing  but  mania,  on  such  a  supposition 
can  afford  a  solution  of  their  wickedness  and  folly.  ^ 

In  the  conclusion  of  Mr.  Wesley’s  letter  to  Mr.  Asburv  on  assuming 
the  title  of  bishop,  Mr.  M‘Caine  thinks  there  is  a  “  mystery”  unintel- 
ligible  without  an  explanatory  key ;  which  he  of  course  furnishes  to 
suit  his  purpose.  Mr.  Wesley  says,  “Let  the  Presbyterians  do  what 
they  please,  but  let  the  Methodists  know  their  calling  better.”  Now, 
says  Mr.  M‘Caine,  “  What  connexion  has  this  sentence  with  the  rest  of 
his  letter?  We  perceive  none.”  But  perceive  a  very  plain  con¬ 
nexion  ;  and  one  perfectly  “  intelligible,”  without  any  other  “  explana¬ 
tory  key”  than  that  of  a  simple  attention  to  the  subject,  and  a  know¬ 
ledge  of  the  views  of  the  Presbyterians  in  relation  to  it.  The  subject 

was  a  Methodist  minister’s  allowing  himself  to  be  called  bishop. _ 

Now  the  Presbyterians  do  allow  this.  “  In  the  form  of  government  of 
the  Presbyterian  church  the  pastors  of  churches  are  expressly  styled 
bishops,  and  this  title  is  recommended  to  be  retained  as  both  scriptural 
and  appropriate.”  Miller’s  Letters,  p.  9.  “  Let  the  Presbyterians,” 

says  Mr.  Wesley,  “  do  what  they  please,  but  let  the  Methodists  kno’w 
their  calling  better.” — Who  does  not  perceive  the  plain  connexion? 

Again ;  Mr.  M‘Caine  says,  p.  39-40,  “  Mr.  Asbury  had  said  he 
would  not  receive  any  person  deputed  by  Mr.  Wesley  to  take  any  part 
of  the  superintendency  of  the  work  entrusted  to  him.  Yet  neither  he 
nor  the  conference  refused  to  receive  Dr.  Coke.  Indeed  to  have 
shown  the  least  symptom  of  opposition  either  to  Mr.  Wesley  or  to 
Dr.  Coke,  at  this  juncture^  would  have  been  to  prevent  the  accomplish¬ 
ment  of  the  most  ardent  wishes  of  Mr.  Asbury  and  the  preachers.  It 
would  have  been  to  dash  the  cup  from  their  lips  when  they  were  upon 
the  very  point  of  tasting  its  sweets.  No  opposition,  therefore,  was 
made.  No  resistance  was  offered.  Every  thing  went  on  smoothly  ; 
and  whether  from  prudence  or  policy,  inclination  or  interest,  Dr.  Coke 
was  received  as  a  superintendent,  and  Mr.  Wesley’s  authority  acknow¬ 
ledged  and  respected.  But - scarcely  had  Mr.  Asbury  begun  to 

exercise  the  functions  of  his  new  office,  when  Mr.  Wesley’s  authority 
was  rejected,  and  his  name  left  out  of  the  minutes.” — What  ideas  Mr. 
M^Caine  attaches  to  the  terms  “wise”  and  “good,”  we  do  not  cer¬ 
tainly  know.  But  how  he  can  call  Mr.  Asbury  wise  and  good,  in  the 
very  same  work  in  which  he  continually  paints  him  in  such  colours, 
upon  any  princi[)les  ol  ethics  which  we  have  ever  studied,  is  beyond 
our  comprehension. 

When  the  conference  of  1784  said  they  judged  it  expedient  to  form 
themselves  into  a  separate  and  independent  church,  Mr.  M‘Caine 
affirms  that  they  meant  that  they  did  then  “separate  from  Mr.  Wesley 
and  the  English  Methodists:”  and  adds,  “in  accordance  with  this 


51 


fieclaration  his  name  was  struck  off  the  Minutes  ot  conterence,  j).  4U. 
Yet  the  fact  is  that  that  same  conference  acknowledged  themselves 
Mr  Wesley’s  sons  in  the  gospel,  ready  m  matters  belonging  to  church 
“ave™S  to  obey  his  commands;  and  recorded  h.s  name  on  their 
Minutes  with  this  declaration,  and  left  it  so  recorded .  and  in  the 
face  of  this  Mr.  M‘Caine  makes  the  above  assertion.  j  ,  . 

The  absurdity  of  his  interpretation  of  this  subject,  and  the  true 
meaning  of  the  phrase  “  separate  and  independent  church,  as  «sed  by 
Jhe  conference  of  1784,  will  further  appear  from  the  following  testi- 

"'The'hrst  native  American  travelling  preacher  was  the  late  vene¬ 
rable  Wm.  Watters.  In  his  memoirs,  written  by  himself,  under  the 
date  1777  he  says  “  In  fact  we  considered  ourselves  at  this  time 
as  belongi;ig  to  the  church  of  England,  it  bang  bej ore  ^ur  _ 
tion,  and  our  becoming  a  regularly  formed  church.  P- ’ 

‘‘  Dec  25,  1784.— We  became,  instead  of  a  rehgwus  society,^  sepa^ 
rate  church  under  the  name  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

From  the  year  1769,  to  the  year  1784,  the  Methodists  were  replp 
members  of  the  church  of  England.  Stnce  1784,  the  Methodists  m 
America  have  been  independent  of  the  English  Church,  and  have  had 
fn  Episcopacy  of  their  Ln.”  Rev.  Nicholas  Snethen’s  reply  to  J. 

""Df'c^ktt^he 'sermon  which  he  preached  in  Baltimore  on  the 
ordination  of  bishop  Asbury,  expressed  the  same  sentiments  t  «s 
terms,  “  The  church  of  England,  of  which  the  society  of 
in  ffeneral  have  till  lately  professed  themselves  a  part.  —And  in  his 
letter  to  bishop  White  he  expressly  calls  the  separation  spoken  of,  our 

plan  of  separation  from  the  church  of  Eng  an  .  v,.aoiln(T  nf  Dr 

^  The  Rev.  Ezekiel  Cooper  was  present  at  the  6rst  meeting  of  Dr. 
Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  in  America;  one  of  “the  most  solenm,  inte¬ 
resting  and  affectionate  meetings,”  he  declares  “  which  he  has  ever 
witnessed.”  At  that  meeting  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord  s  supper  was 
firit  administered  among  the  Methodists  in  this  country,  by  their  own 
mtisters.  At  that  melting  he  first  partook  of  “.at  ordinance,  and 
then  first  consented  to  enter  into  the  itinerant  connexion.  And  from 
that  time  to  the  present,  no  man  among  us  probably,  has  ever  more 
studiously  and  thoroughly  acquainted  himself  with 
to  Methodism,  and  to  its  origin  and  history,  arid  eape<naUy  to  the 
origin  and  history  of  the  Methodist  Episcopacy,  than  Mr.  Cooper.  It 
wilf  probably  be  admitted  too,  that  few,  if  any,  among  us  are  capa¬ 
ble  of  Investigating  such  subjects;  or  have  ;"ore  ample  opporm- 
nities  and  means  of  searching  into  them  critically  and  closely  We 
shall  therefore  avail  ourselves  of  his  testimony  with  confidence  .  and 
the  more  so,  as  it  is  well  known  that  he  did  not  m  all  things  agree  w  ith 

*  We  had  imagined  that  these  singular  ideas  were  “htcif 

Mr.  M'Caine’s ;  till  we  discovered  the  same  m  one  of  :  .■  f  Episcopal 

It  WT8  more  than  two  years  after  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Lpiscop 
Church  before  Mr.  Wesley’s  name  was  left  ofi’the  Minutes,  in 
t(,at  [duase  ;  and  ,t  was  not  done  by  Mr.  Asbury,  nor  by  the  conference  of  1 .  d. 
This  will  be  explained  hereafter. 


V 


Mr.  Asbury  on  some  points  of  ecclesiastical  polity.  Yet  he  had,  not¬ 
withstanding,  a  heart,  as  well  as  a  head,  to  appreciate  and  to  honour 
both  his  conduct  and  his  motives. 

“  The  conference  met,”  says  Mr.  Cooper,  “  Dec.  1784.  It  was  unani¬ 
mously  agreed  that  circumstances  made  it  expedient  for  the  Methodist 
societies  in  America  to  become  a  separate  body  from  the  church  of 
England^  of  which,  until  then,  they  had  been  considered  as  members.” 
Cooper  on  Asbury,  p.  108.* 

“  From  that  time,”  (14th  Nov.  1784)  says  Mr.  Cooper  again,  “  I  have 
had  a  particular  and  intimate  knowledge  of  Francis  Asbury,  and  the 
manner  of  his  life.  We  have  had  a  confidential  intercourse,  an  inti¬ 
mate  friendship,  and  union  of  heart.  I  am  confidently  persuaded,  to 
take  him  all  and  in  all,  that  no  man,  in  America,  ever  came  up  to  his 
standard.  I  have  known  him  well^  and  1  have  known  him  long. 
Most  excellent  man ;  who  can  but  admire  him  with  reverence  ? — His  eye 
appeared  to  be  always  single,  and  his  whole  body,  soul,  and  example,  full 
of  light.  The  purpose  of  man  is  essentially  connected  with  his  manner 
of  life.  The  word  purpose  signifies — the  design  and  motive  of  the 
heart  in  our  actions.  Now  what  was  the  design,  the  motive,  the  ob- 
j^t,  the  end,  or  the  purpose  of  the  venerable  bishop  Asbury?  Examine 
his  whole  deportment  and  conduct — retrospect  and  investigate  his 
public  and  private  life.  Look  into  all  his  movements  and  transactions. 
We  have  had  the  most  indubitable  evidences  of  the  honest  sincerity  and 
strict  integrity  of  his  soul,  and  the  purity  and  uprightness  of  his  designs, 
intentions,  and  motives.  Next  to  his  brother  Charles,  no  man  stood 
higher  in  the  esteem  and  confidence  of  Mr.  Wesley  than  Dr.  Coke  ; 
and  in  America  no  man  stood  so  high  with  him  as  Mr.  Asbury.” — 
Ib.  pp.  134-135. 

This  is  the  testimony  of  no  sycophant,  flatterer,  or  dependant.  It 
is  the  honourable  and  faithful  testimony  of  one  intimately  acquainted 
with  the  parties ;  who  had  nothing  to  hope  or  to  fear  ;  and  who  ren¬ 
dered  his  testimony  after  their  death ;  whose  only  object  was  truth,  and 
justice  to  the  dead ;  and  who  was  himself  well  acquainted  with  the 
mind  of  Mr.  Wesley,  having  been  one  of  his  correspondents,  and  re¬ 
ceived  from  him  the  last  letter  that  he  ever  wrote  to  America. 

Had  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Asbury  been  regarded  by  Mr.  Wesley  in 
the  serious  moral  bearing  in  which  Mr.  M‘Caine  has  represented  it,  it 
is  impossible  that  a  man  of  Mr.  Wesley’s  discernment,  and  high  sense 
of  honour  and  propriety,  could  have  continued  to  hold  him  in  the 
high  esteem  in  which  we  have  the  most  satisfactory  evidence  that 
he  did. 

Mr.  Asbury  always  believed  that  some  things  respecting  him  had 
been  unfairly  represented  to  Mr.  Wesley ;  and  we  think  that  Mr. 

It  will  be  observed  that  Avhat  was  considered  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this 
country',  both  during  and  for  some  time  after  the  revolutionary  war,  was  still  usually 
spoken  of  as  the  Church  of  England;  although,  strictly  speaking,  the  Church  of 
England  had  ceased  to  exist  in  the  United  States,  from  the  time  of  the  declaration 
of  our  independence.  It  was  in  this  common  acceptation  of  the  phrase  that  all 
tho  writers  of  those  times,  whom  we  quote,  used  it.  And  even  to  this  day  it  is 
known  that  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  is  still  sometimes  called  the  Church 
of  England. 


53 


M‘Caine  himself  has  iuniished  documents,  (though  tor  a,  very  ditierenl 
purpose,)  which  tend  strongly  to  confirm  this  impression.  He  quotes 
a  letter  from  Dr.  Coke  to  Mr.  Wesley,  dated  August  9,  1784,  in  which 
are  these  words,  “Mr.  Brackenbury  informed  me  at  Leeds,  that  he 
saw  a  letter  in  London  from  Mr.  Asbury,  in  which  he  observed,  ‘  that 
he  would  not  receive  any  person  deputed  by  you  to  take  any  part  of 
the  superintendency  of  the  work  invested  in  him,  or  words  evidently 
implying  so  much.’  ”  Now  we  think  this  account  is  sufficiently  refuted 
by  the  unhesitating,  the  open,  and  the  exceedingly  affectionate  man¬ 
ner  in  which  Mr.  Asbury  did  receive,  and  welcome  Dr.  Coke,  imme¬ 
diately  on  his  arrival.  This  has  been  attested  by  Mr.  Cooper,  who  was 
an  eye  and  ear  witness.  Indeed  Mr.  Cooper  affirms  that  so  touchingly 
tender  and  affecting  was  the  scene,  that  he  can  never  forget  it.  It  was 
in  full  view  of  a  large  concourse  of  people, — a  crowded  congregation, 
at  a  quarterly  meeting, — and  the  whole  assembly,  as  if  divinely  struck, 
burst  into  a  flood  of  tears.  If  all  this,  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Asbury,  was 
dissimulation,  and  hypocrisy,  concealing  under  such  a  show  the  inter¬ 
nal  resistance  which  he  felt  to  the  reception  of  a  coadjutor  from  Mr. 
Wesley,  lest  he  should  “  dash  the  cup  from  his  lips,  when  upon  the 
point  of  tasting  its  sweets,”  then,  indeed,  does  his  memory  deserve  to 
be  branded  with  infamy.  Mr.  Brackenbury  doubtless  said  what  he 
thought, — yet  how  easily  might  he  have  been  mistaken  in  the  recol¬ 
lection  of  the  expressions  of  a  letter,  when  undertaking  to  recite  them 
from  memory  at  such  a  distance?  How  easily  might  he  have  mis¬ 
taken  their  meaning?  Indeed  he  himself  gives  evidence  of  a  want 
of  clearness  of  recollection  as  to  the  exact  expressions  of  that  letr 
ter;  for  he  adds,  “or  words  evidently  implying  so  much:\  And 
we  know  well  that  a  very  small,  and  even  undesigned  variation  of 
expression,  may  very  materially  alter  the  sense.  We  have  already  seen 
an  instance  of  this  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Coke  s  letter  to  bishop  White. 
The  import  of  that  letter  has  been  clearly  misunderstood,  though  with 
the  letter  itself  in  hand.  Had  we  before  us  also  the  letter  of  Mr. 
Asbury  to  which  Mr.  Brackenbury  alluded,  we  might  perhaps  be  able 
to  show  some  equal  mistake.  We  object,  theretore,  toi  this  parol, 
third  handed,  report ;  and,  unless  the  document  itself  be  produced, 
we  protest  against  the  statement'. 

In  another  letter,  dated  October  31,  1739,  Mr.  M‘Caine  (p.  47^ 
represents  Mr.  Wesley  as  saying  of  Mr.  Asbury,  “  He  flatly  refused  to 
receive  Mr.  Whatcoat  in  the  character  I  sent  him.”  Now  this  could 
not  have  been.  Mr.  Asbury  had  no  power,  of  himself,  to  refuse  to 
receive  Mr.  Whatcoat.  It  was  the  conference  that  refused  to  receive 
him.  If  the  conference  had  received  him,  Mr.  Asbury  would  have 
been  obliged  to  do  so  also,  or  himself  to  have  left  the  superirt- 
tendency.* 

Again;  in  this  same  letter  Mr.  Wesley  is  represented  as  saying, 
“  He”  [Mr.  Asbury]  told  George  Shadford,  Mr.  Wesley  and  I  are 

^  That  Mr.  Asbury  did  not  refuse  to  receive  Mr.  Whatcoat,  we  shall,  in  anoth^- 
place,  demonstrate,  by  the  most  indubitable  evidence.  It  is  proper,  however,  ,o 
add  here  that  it  was  not  from  personal  objections  to  Mr.  Whatcoat  that  the  con  er- 
ence  did  not  then  receive  him  as  a  superintendent ;  but  for  reasons  which  win  ufe 
hereafter  stated.  Thev  did  at  a  subsequent  conference  elect  him. 

7 


V 


54 

like  Cesar  and  Fompey — he  will  bear  no  equal,  and  I  will  bear  no 
superior.”  Now  let  it  be  remembered  that  George  Shadford  left 
America  early  in  1778.  At  that  time  Mr.  Asbury  had  been  in  this 
country  himself  but  a  few  years,  and  was  then  in  the  most  critical  and 
perilous  circumstances  in  the  heat  of  the  revolutionary  struggle,  doubt¬ 
ful  of  his  own  safety,  and  of  the  fate  of  the  Methodist  societies.  And 
can  we  believe  that  even  then,  or  at  any  period  still  earlier,  he  seri¬ 
ously  made  such  a  speech  to  George  Shadford,  declaring  himself  the 
rival  of  Mr.  Wesley,  and  not  brooking  even  his  superiority,  as  Pompey 
would  not  brook  Cesar’s  1 — Credat  Judaeus  Apelles.  It  was  known 
and  acknowledged,  both  by  Mr.  Asbury  and  every  other  preacher, 
that  his  place  and  office  at  that  time  was  not  that  of  Mr.  Wesley’s 
equal,  or  rival,  but  of  his  assistant.  Or,  if  this  speech  is  alleged  to  have 
been  made  before  Mr.  Rankin  left  America,  then,  at  that  period,  he 
was  not  even  Mr.  W^esley’s  assistant,  but  subject  also  to  Mr.  Rankin. 

But  how  happens  it  that  Mr.  M‘Caine  has  told  us  nothing  more 
about  this  letter  ?  Why  did  he  not  state  to  whom  it  was  written,  and 
from  what  authority  he  received  it  ?  Had  he  not  sufficient  ground  to 
be  ‘‘  suspicious”  of  this  “  whole  affair  ?”  Did  he  not  derive  it  from 
one  whom  he  knew  to  have  been  an  avowed,  bitter,  and  personal  enemy 
of  bishop  Asbury  ; — one  who  laboured  to  distract  and  rend  our  infant 
church; — who  was  formally  expelled  from  the  British  connexion; 
and  was  directly  charged  by  Dr.  Coke  with  the  grossest  calumny  and 
falsehood  ?  The  documents  in  proof  of  all  this  are  in  our  possession. 
Yet  it  is  from  such  sources  that  Mr.  M‘Caine  has  picked  up,  and,  after 
the  parties  are  all  dead,  has  published  calumnies  which  had  been  long 
since  silenced  and  buried  in  merited  oblivion.  And  we  here  assert 
that  if  his  publication  be  stript  of  the  materials  which  he  has  derived 
from  such  sources,  and  from  the  obsolete  pamphlets  of  Mr.  Kewley, 
Mr.  Hammett,  Mr.  O’Kelly,  and  other  separatists,  and  troublers  of  our 
Israel,  very  little  original  matter  will  be  found  in  his  whole  produc¬ 
tion  ;  except,  indeed,  the  amplifications  and  the  deeper  tincture  which 
their  long  refuted  aspersions  have  received  from  his  pen ;  and  the  ad¬ 
vantage  which  he  has  taken  of  the  lapse  of  time  and  the  silence  which 
death  has  imposed  on  the  accused,  to  impute  to  them  unheard  of 
frauds  and  forgeries,  which,  in  their  life  time,  no  man  living  had 
the  effrontery  even  to  insinuate.  .  The  aforesaid  noted  letter,  bears  on 
the  face  of  it  marks  of  corruption,  or  of  fabrication.  And  until  better 
authority  is  produced  for  it,  or  the  document  itself,  we  hold  it  unen¬ 
titled  to  one  particle  of  credit. 

Again  ;  in  the  letter  with  which  Mr.  M^Caine  seems  to  be  so  much 
pleased,  Mr.  Wesley  says  to  Mr.  Asbury,  “  I  study  to  be  little,  you 
study  to  be  great :  I  creep,  you  strut  along.  I  found  a  school,  you  a 
college.'^  It  will  be  recollected  that  this  letter  was  written  in  the  year 
after  what  has  been  called  the  leaving  of  Mr.  Wesley’s  name  off  the 
Minutes ;  and  at  a  period  when  even  his  great  and  excellent  mind  had 
not,  perhaps,  entirely  recovered  from  that  occurrence.  It  is  known, 
too,  that  there  were  individuals  unfriendly  to  Mr.  Asbury,  who  repre¬ 
sented  him  unfairly  to  Mr.  Wesley.  The  Rev.  Ezekiel  Cooper  him-  » 
self  intimated  to  Mr.  Wesley  the  injustice  of  such  representations ; 
and  he  thinks  Mr.  Wesley  had  allusion  to  this  in  the  last  letter  which 


55 


he  wrote  to  him,  just  before  lus  death.  But  had  Mr.  Wesiey  been  m 
America  and  himself  witnessed  Mr.  Asbury  s  manner  of  life,  froni  the 
commencement  of  his  ministry  among  us,  to  its  close,  would  he  have 
exnressed  himself  thus?  We  believe  he  would  not.  The  testimony  ot 
th^  most  intelligent,  observing,  and  competent  eye  witnesses,  who 
watched  him  narrowly,  and  saw  him,  and  knew  him  intimately,  in  a  l 
situations  and  circumstances,  in  private  and  in  public,  for  more  than 

***  To  {h”  testimony  of  Mr.  Cooper  already  adduced,  we  add  the 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  mention,  what  must  be  so  obvious,  that 
in  performing  his  astonishing  annual  tours,  and  in  attending  to  all  the 
vast  variety  of  his  Christian,  ministerial,  and  Episcopal  duties  and 
callings,  he  must  have  been  almost  continually  on  the  move.  Flying, 
^  it  vvere,  like  the  angel  through  the  earth,  preaching  the  everlasting 
gospel ;  no  season,  no  weather  stopped  him.  Through  winter  s  cold, 
fnd  summer’s  heat,  he  pressed  on.  He  was  often  in  the  tempest  and 
the  storm  ;  in  rain,  snow,  and  hail ;  in  hunger,  tins  ,  j  . 

afflictions.  Sometimes  uncomfortable  entertainment,  with  bar  g 
ing,  and  unkind  treatment.  ‘  I  soar,’  said  Mr.  Asbury  himself,  but 
it  fs  over  the  tops  of  the  highest  mountains^— Then  to  the  d^t“t  a“d 
remote  settlements,  traversing  ,  c-os 

and  recrossing  dangerous  waters administering  the  word  ofile  m 
lonely  cottages,  to  the  poor  and  destitute sleeping 
or  on  beds  of  straw,  or  not  much  better,  in  houses  of  logs,  covered 
with  bark  of  trees,  or  wooden  slabs  ;-somet.mes  lodging  in  the  wil- 
derLss  and  open  air,— with  the  earth  for  his  bed,  and  the  sl^  for  his 
canopy ;  surrounded  by  ravenous  beasts,  and  fierce  savages.  He  knew 
how  tl  kbound  among  the  wealthy  ;  and  how  to  endure  hardship  and 
want  among  the  poor.  This  was  his  manner  of  life,  to  spend  and  be 
spent  in  going  about  from  place  to  place,  like  his  Master,  and  the 
Sles  of  old,  in  doing  good.  He  cheerfully  oni  willingly  conde- 
scenLd  to  men  of  low  estate.  Even  the  poor  African  race,  m  bond¬ 
age  and  wrSchedness,  were  not  neglected  by  him  He  attended  to 
their  forlorn  condition,  and  taught  them  the  way  of  life  and  salvation. 
When  among  the  great,  the  honourable,  and  tne  rich,  he  manifested 
humditvTn  prosperity;  maintaining,  at  the  same  time,  a  dignihed 
independence  of  spirit,  without  exaltation.  When  among  the  poor  and 
owefclasses  of  society,  he  showed  a  courteous  condescension,  and 
mSesmd'colnt  anl’patience  in  adversity.  He  went  on  « 
good  report,  and  through  evil  report,  among  the  rich  “ 

wise,  and  the  unwise ; - at  all  times,  among  all  people, 

and  upon  all  occasions,  his  aim  was  to  promote  the  c^se  ofGod  to 
be  instrumental  to  the  good  of  man,  and  to  the  salvation  of  precious 

"“sucr^Z  tertim1,5“of  M?.‘co^^  And  "''’o  that  reads^it,  and 
venerates  the  memory  of  the  departed  Asbury,  will  no  , 

thou  man  of  God,  who  could  have  “  hfm  lilt 

Wesley,  thy  venerable  friend,  as  to  have  induced  J'™ 
reproof!  But  the  meekness  of  conscious 

Asbury  received  it,  excites  our  admiration,  not  less  than  the  m  » 


56 


emotions  which  must  be  produced  in  every  generous  breast,  at  the 
unkindness  with  which  Mr.  M'Caine  yet  pursues  him  in  the  grave. 
With  regard  to  the  part  which  Mr.  Asbury  acted  in  founding  a 
College’^  Mr.  Wesley  was  equally  misinformed.  This  matter  has 
been  placed  in  its  true  light  by  Mr.  Asbury  himself,  as  Mr.  M‘Caine 
might  have  seen  in  his  Journal.  After  the  college  was  founded  he 
certainly  did  all  in  his  power  to  support  it.  And  when  it  was  burned, 
in  December  1795,  he  remarks,  “  Would  any  man  give  me  <£10,000 
per  year  to  do  and  suffer  again  what  I  have  done  for  that  house,  I 
would  not  do  it.”  But  that  it  was  not  founded  by  him,  he  explicitly 
affirms  in  these  words,  “  I  wished  only  for  schools’’  It  is  true  Dr. 
Coke  w^anted  a  college.  And  the  whole  head  and  front  of  Mr.  Asbu- 
ry’s  offending  is,  that  he  yielded  to  the  wishes  of  his  colleague,  and  his 
senior  in  office,  and  co-operated  with  him. 

Mr.  Asbury’s  favourite  plan  was  that  of  “  district  schools.”  These 
he  recommended  to  the  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  : 
and  in  the  year  1791,  prepared  an  address  recommending  them. 
Mr.  Lee  represents  this  address  as  having  been  drawn  up  in  1793. 
This,  however,  is  a  mistake.  It  may  be  found  in  the  Minutes  for  1791, 
and  is  dated  “near  Salem,  New  Jersey,  Sept.  16,  1791.”  Had  this 
plan  been  generally  adopted,  the  great  wisdom  and  excellence  of  it 
W’ould  have  been  felt  to  this  day. 

With  regard  to  the  naming  of  Cokesbury  College,  we  believe  Mr, 
Asbury  had  no  hand  in  it.  It  was  done  at  the  conference  held  in 
Baltimore,  in  June  1785.  When  it  was  proposed  to  name  the  college, 
different  names  were  proposed,  such  as  New-Kingswood,  and  others, 
after  places  in  England.  Some  proposed  to  call  it  Coke  College,  and 
others  Asbury  College.  On  which  Dr.  Coke,  to  end  the  discussion, 
suggested  that  they  might  unite  those  names,  and  call  it  Cokesbury ; 
which  was  done.  These  facts  we  have  derived  from  persons  who  were 
present  at  that  conference.  He  that  can  make  a  crime  out  of  them, 
must  use  his  pleasure. 

The  fact  is,  that  Cokesbury  College,  so  called,  was  really  no  more, 
than  a  school,  on  the  plan  of  Kingswood.  This  was  the  plan  agreed 
on  between  Dr.  Coke  and.  Mr.  Asbury,  and  is  so  stated  by  Dr.  Coke 
in  his  Journal  of  Nov.  14,  1784.  The  institution  never  was  incorpo¬ 
rated  as  a  college.  This  was  in  contemplation  ;  but  before  a  charter 
was  obtained,  the  destruction  of  the  building  by  fire  terminated  the 
existence  of  the  whole  establishments 

We  may  well  say  then  with  the  late  Rev.  John  Dickins  :  “  Mr.  As¬ 
bury  does  not  bear  a  character  like  many  others,  so  superficial  as  not  to 
admit  of  examination  beneath  its  surface  ;  but  like  fine  gold,  the  more 
it  is  scrutinized  the  more  its  intrinsic  worth  appears :  therefore  they 
wffio  have  most  thoroughly  investigated  his  character,  both  as  a  Chris¬ 
tian  and  a  minister,  admire  it  most.”  Remarks  on  W.  Hammet,  p.  6. 
The  following  is  the  testimony  of  the  Rev,  Nicholas  Snethen, — 
“For  nearly  thirty  years  he”  (Mr.  Asbury,)  “  has  travelled  with  a 
delicate  and  disordered  constitution,  through  almost  all  the  inhabited 
parts  of  the  United  States.  Nothing  but  the  wild,  uncultivated  wil¬ 
derness,  could  fix  his  bounds.  Wherever  there  were  souls  to  be  saved, 
he  has  endeavoured  to  extend  his  labours.  But  thev  have  not  been 


.s\ich  as  are  endured  by  the  ordinary  minister.  He  iias  not  only  la¬ 
boured  incessantly  in  the  word  and  doctrine,  he  has  been  in  perils  in. 
the  wilderness — in  perils  among  false  brethren — in  journeyings  often — • 
in  weariness  and  painfulness — in  watchings  often — in  hunger  and 
thirst— in  fastings  often— in  cold  and  nakedness.— the  first  day 
he  set  foot  upon  American  ground^  unto  the  present  hour^  he  has  never 
been  known  to  seek  the  honour  that  comethfrom  men;  nor  can  any  mari 
accuse  him  of  indulging  the  flesh,  or  seeking  the  pomp  and  vanity  of 
this  world.  We  have  never  known  him  to  spend  one  day  more  than 
was  strictly  necessary,  in  any  city  or  town  upon  the  continent.  We 
havr'  observed  that  he  never  wai  s  for  a  solicitation  to  visit  the  fron¬ 
tiers  :  but  we  have  frequently,  after  we  have  endeavoured  to  dissuade 
him  from  these  painful  and  hazardous  journeys,  looked  after  him  with 
anxious  solicitude,  expecting  never  to  see  his  face  again.  If  Mr. 
O’Kelly  and  Mr.  H.  wish  to  know  what  it  is  that  disposes  the 
Methodist  preachers  to  give  such  a  preference  to  this  Englishman, 

we  answer:  ‘‘It  is  not  his  native  country, - it  is  not  merely 

because  he  is  a  bishop  ;  we  think  nothing  of  bare  titles  ;  but  our  pre¬ 
ference  is  founded  in  a  knowledge  of  the  man,  and  his  communica¬ 
tion.  We  have  tried  him  in  all  things,  and  we  have  always  found 
him  faithful  to  the  trust  reposed  in  him  by  us.  In  him  we  see  an  ex¬ 
ample  of  daily  labour,  suffering  and  self  denial,  worthy  the  imitation 
of  the  young  preacher.  In  a  word,  we  have  every  reason  to  esteem 
him  as  ^father,  and  not  one  reason  to  suspect  or  discard  him  as  a 
f.ifrant  or  despot'^  Keply  to  Mr.  O’Kelly,  p.  51. 


Section  X. —  Testimonies  of  English  Methodists. 

Mr.  M’Caine  says,  p.  31,  “  Neither  are  the  ordinations  which  he,'" 
[Mr  Wesley,]  “-conferred,  viewed  by  writers  among  the  English 
Methodists,  who  wrote  in  justification  of  Mr.  Wesley’s  right  to  ordain, 
as  favouring  our  title  to  Episcopacy.”  And  in  support  of  this  asser¬ 
tion,  he  quotes  a  passage  from  the  English  Methodist  Magazine,  for 
1825,  which  states  that  Mr.  Wesley  “  gave  up  Episcopal  ordination  as 
understood  by  high  churchmen  f  and  established  the“  validity  of  Pres¬ 
byterian  ordination.”  But  who  ever  disputed  this?  Are  not  both 
these  propositions  as  clearly  maintained  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  as  by  our  brethren  of  the  British  Connexion  ?  That  any 
“contrary  statement  coming  from  our  book  agents”  in  tins  countr}% 
has  ever  been  made,  or  published,  is  an  assertion  wholly  unfounded. 

On  the  character  of  our  Episcopacy  we  have  already  stated  the  sen¬ 
timents  of  Dr.'s^dam  Clarke,  and  of  the  Rev.  Richard  Watson.  We 
have  also  quoted  a  passage  from  the  Rev.;  Henry  Moore,  the  intimate 
friend  of  Mr.  Wesley,  and  his  faithful  biographer,  in  which  he  says 
of  our  bishops;  “  That  our  brethren  who  are  in  that  office  are  true 
Scriptural  bishops,  /  have  no  doubt  at  all ;  nor  do  I  wish  that  the  title 
should  be  relinquished.”  Life  of  Wesley,  vol  ii,  p- 287. 

To  these  testimonies  we  add  the  following  from  the  Rev.  Jonathan 
Crowther,  author  of  the  Portraiture  of  Methodism. 

“  Peace  being  now  established  with  the  United  States ;  and  Mr. 


58 


Asbury  and  the  other  preachers,  having  been  instrumental  of  a  great 
revival  during  the  war,  solicited”  [Mr.  Wesley]  “  to  send  them  help. 
Hence,  in  Feb^ruary  this  year,”  [1784]  “he  called  Dr.  Coke  into  his  cham¬ 
ber,  and  spoke  to  him  nearly  as  follows :  That  as  the  American  bre¬ 
thren  wanted  a  form  of  discipline,  and  ministerial  aid  ;  and,  as  he  ever 
wished  to  keep  to  the  Bible,  and  as  near  to  primitive  Christianity  as  he 
could,he  had  always  admired  the  Alexandrian  mode  of  ordaining  bishops. 
The  presbyters  of  that  great  apostolical  church,  would  never  allow  any 
foreign  bishop  to  interfere  in  their  ordinations ;  but  on  the  death  of  a 
bishop,  for^two  hundred  years,  till  the  time  of  Dionysius,  they  ordained 
one  of  their  own  body,  and  by  the  imposition  of  their  own  hands. 
Adding  withal,  that  he  wished  the  doctor  to  go  over  and  establish  that 
mode  among  the  American  Methodists. 

“  All  this  was  quite  new  to  the  doctor.  The  idea  of  an  Alexan¬ 
drian  ordination,  was  at  first  somewhat  revolting  to  his  prejudices. 
However,  being  about  to  set  out  for  Scotland,  he  weighed  the  sub¬ 
ject  for  two  months,  and  then  wrote  his  entire  approbation  of  the  plan. 
Accordingly,  he  was  ordained  bishop,  and  brothers  Whatcoat  and 
Vasey,  presbyters.”  Second  English  Edition,  pp.  412-13. 

The  same  statement  is  made  by  the  Rev.  Joseph  Sutcliffe,  an  emi¬ 
nent  Wesleyan  Methodist  Minister,  in  his  “  Short  Memoirs  of  Thomas 
Coke,  LL.  D.”  This  work  was  republished  by  Daniel  Hitt  and 
Thomas  Ware,  in  1815. 

But  Mr.  M’Caine  relies  on  the  English  Wesleyan  Methodist  Maga¬ 
zine,  and  quotes  the  volume  for  1825.  Let  us  see  then,  how  this 
work  supports  him.  That  same  volume  contains  a  “  Review  of  the 
Rev.  Henry  Moore’s  Life  of  Rev.  John  Wesley,”  in  which  we  think 
we  recognise  the  style  of  one  of  the  most  eminent  men  in  the  British 
connexion.  The  following  interesting  passages  extracted  from  it,  are 
as  clearly  and  as  fully  to  our  purpose  as  if  they  had  been  written  for  us. 

“  The  author,”  says  the  reviewer  of  Mr.  Moore,  “  has  spent  some 
time  in  showing  that  Episcopacy,  by  name,  was  not  introduced  into 
the  American  Methodist  Society  by  the  sanction  of  Mr.  Wesley,  who, 
though  he  in  point  of  fact  did  ordain  bishops  for  the  American  Socie¬ 
ties,  intended  them  to  be  called  ‘  superintendents.^  To  the  statement 
of  this  as  an  historical  fact,  no  objection  certainly  lies  ;  but  the  way  in 
which  it  is  enlarged  upon,  and  the  insertion  of  an  objurgatory  letter 
from  Mr.  Wesley  to  Mr.  Asbury  on  the  subject, — can  have  not  en- 
dency  but  to  convey  to  the  reader  an  impression  somewhat  unfavour¬ 
able  to  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury,  as  though  they  were  ambitious  of 
show  and  title.  Mr.  Moore,  indeed,  candidly  enough  relieves  this, 
by  admitting  that,  on  Mr.  Wesley^ s  principle  itself,  and  in  his  own 
view,  they  were  true  scriptural  Episcopoi,  and  that  Mr.  Wesley’s  ob¬ 
jection  to  the  name,  in  fact,  arose  from  its  association  in  his  mind 
rather  with  the  adventitious  honours  which  accompany  it  in  church 
establishments,  than  with  the  simplicity  and  pre-eminence  of  labour, 
care,  and  privation,  which  it  has  from  the  first  exhibited  in  America, 
and  from  which  it  could  not  from  circumstances,  depart.  According 
to  this  showing,  the  objection  was  grounded  upon  no  principle,  and 
was  a  mere  matter  of  taste  or  expediency. — Whether  the  name  had  or 
bad  not  the  sanction  of  Mr.  Wesley,  is  now  o  f  the  least  possible  ronsc- 


59 


uueiice,  as  tite  Episcopacy  itsdf  was  op  his  creating.  ’  Enghab 
Wpslevan  Methodist  Magazine  for  1825,  p.  Iii6. 

^Clelrer  testimonies  from  the  most  eminent  English  Methodist  we 
eoidd  not  desire;  and  we  cheerfully  submit  it  to  the  reader  whether 
rli  men  as  thVse  were  not  likely  to  be  as  well  acquainted  with  the 
subject  as  Mr.  M’Caine ;  and  whether  their  judgment  be  not  a  suffi- 

^'Tn  addition^’to  the  above,  however,  we  have  now 
don  edition  of  Dr.  Coke’s  Journals,  with  a  peface  dated  C'ty  Hoad 
London  Jan.  25,  1790 accompanied  with  a  dedication  To  the 
Rev  Mr  Wesley.”  In  this  dedication  Dr.  Coke  states  that  he  had 
found  in  Mr.  Wesley  “  a  father  and  a  friend  for  thirteen  years.  If 
we  compare  this  with  the  period  at  which  Dr.  Coke  became  connected 
with  Mr.  Wesley,  which  was  between  Aug.  1776  and  Aug.  1777,  it 
will  just  bring  us  down  to  the  date  of  the  preface  ;  and  this  date,  too, 

Ts  in  that  very  year  [conference  year,]  in  which  Dr.  Coki^s  name  was 
left  off  the  British  Minutes.  It  is  hardly  to  be 

Dr  Coke  would,  at  that  period  particularly,  h^e  published  and  detk- 
cated  to  Mr.  Wesley,  as  his  father  and  friend,  what  ^ 

denied  by  Mr.  Wesley  and  to  be  peculiarly  offensive  to  him.  Yet  in 
these  very  Journals,  p.  106,  Dr.  Coke  says,  and  said  it  to  Mr.  Wesley, 
■‘‘On  the^  9th  of  MmcIi,”  [1789,]  “we  began  our  conference  m 
Georgia.  Here  we  agreed,  (as  we  have  ever  since  /uch  of  the 
conferences,)  that  Mr.  Wesley’s  name  should  be  inserted  at  rte  head 
of  our  Small  Minutes,  and  also  in  our  form  of  Discipline  .  In  t  e 
Small  Minutes  as  the  fountain  of  our  Episcopal  office ,  and  m  the 
form  of  Discipline  as  the  father  of  the  whole  work,  under  the  divine 
guidance.  To  this  all  the  conferences  have  cheerfully  and  unani- 
Sl!usly  agreed.”  Now  where  is  the  evidence  that  Mr  Wesley  ever 
“  remmstrated”  against  this,  or  expressed  the  slightest  displeasure  at 
it  t  On  the  contrary,  considering  the  circumstances  then  existing, 
is  it  not  absolutely  preposterous  to  believe  that  Dr.  Coke  would  have 
dedicated  such  a  statement  to  him,  if  he  had  not  had  the  best  reasons 
to  believe  that  it  would  meet  his  approbation  1  This  statement  also 
completely  refutes  the  insinuation  that  the  American  conferences 
possLsed  any  disposition  to  treat  Mr.  Wesley  with  disrespect  or  con¬ 
tempt;”  much  less  to  “  excommunicate”  him!  It  "'uy  ®erve  to  satisfy 
another  writer,  also,  what  is  meant  in  the  Minutes  of  17S9,  by  saying 
that  Mr.  Wesley,  Dr.  Coke,  and  Mr.  Asbury,  exercised  the  Episcopal 
office  “  by  regular  order  and  succession.”  The  intention  was  simply 
to  acknowledge  Mr.  esXof  s  precedence.  To  guard  against  any  other 
construction,  a  note  is  added  to  that  observation  in  the  Minutes,  refer- 
ing  to  another-  place,  in  which  the  idea  of  the  fabu  ous  apostolical 
succession  is  expressly  resisted  by  the  bishops  themselves. 


Section  XI. — Dr.  Coke. 

Mr.  M^Caine  states  that  the  maimer  in  which  the  doctor  discharged 
the  duties  of  the  new  office  he  was  appointed  to  fiH,  and  title  ot 
bishop  which  he  assumed,  in  connexion  with  Mr.  Asbury,  in  then 


Joint  address  to  General  Washington,  ‘'president  of  the  American  con¬ 
gress,”  involved  him  in  difficulties  with  Mr.  Wesley  and  the  Britisli 
conference ;  and  that  Mr.  Wesley  called  him  to  an  account  for  his 
conduct,  and  punished  him  by  leaving  his  name  out  of  the  minutes 
for  one  year. 

As  Mr.  M'Caine  professes  to  make  the  authority  of  Mr.  Drew  the 
basis  of  his  account  of  this  affair,  we  shall  first  take  it  up  on  his  own 
ground,  and  shall  show,  from  his  own  authority,  that  had  he  presented 
the  subject  fully,  as  Mr.  Drew  has  done,  instead  of  exposing  Dr.  Coke 
to  reproach,  it  would  demand  for  him  from  us  both  our  admiration  and 
our  veneration. 

According  to  Mr.  Drew,  the  charge  alleged  against  Dr.  Coke  in  the 
British  conference,  was  neither  “  the  manner  in  which  he  discharged 
the  duties  of  the  new  office  he  was  appointed  to  fill,”  nor  his  having 
assumed  “  the  title  of  bishop but,  simply,  that  he,  a  BritiSi 

subject,  had  expressed  to  General  Washington  sentiments,  in  relation 
to  the  American  revolution,  which,  as  a  British  subject,  they  conceived 
he  ought  not  to  have  expressed.  Mr.  Drew,  though  himself  a  British 
subject,  has  vindicated  both  the  conduct  and  the  motives  of  Dr.  Coke 
on  that  occasion,  with  a  triumphant  ability  which  leaves  us  nothing 
to  add.  A  few  fuller  extracts  from  the  same  pages  from  which  Mr. 
M'Caine  took  his,  will  place  the  subject  in  the  fair  and  candid  light, 
in  which  it  was  regarded  by  Dr.  Coke’s  more  magnanimous  biographer. 

“It  is  well  known,”  says  Mr.  Drew,  "  tiiat  in  the  unhappy  contest 
between  Great  Britain  and  America,  Mr.  Wesley  very  warmly  espoused 
the  cause  of  England,  and  reprobated  the  conduct  of  the  colonists. 
This  circumstance  placed  the  Methodists  in  a  very  suspicious  light  in 
the  eyes  of  the  Americans.  The  contest  was  indeed  now  brought  to 
an  issue.  But  although  the  tempest  had  subsided,  the  agitation  which 
it  occasioned,  still  continued,  and  the  waves  were  occasionally  heard 
to  beat  upon  the  shore.  The  suspicions,  therefore,  which  the  Method¬ 
ists  incurred,  it  was  incumbent  on  them  to  wipe  away.  The  citizens 
thought  it  their  duty  to  rally  round  the  infant  government,  and  to  ex¬ 
press  their  approbation  of  the  principles  which  had  been  adopted. 
Among  these  citizens  the  different  religious  sects  presented  their 
addresses.  Amidst  these  examples,  and  under  the  peculiar  circum¬ 
stances  in  which  the  Methodists  were  placed,  it  was  scarcely  possible 
for  them  to  avoid  making  a  similar  acknowledgment  without  incurring 
the  vengeance  of  their  foes.  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  having  assumed 
the  character  of  bishops,  were  in  the  eyes  of  all  the  acknowledged  head 
of  the  American  Methodists ;  and  no  address  could  be  considered  as 
official,  unless  it  bore  their  signatures,  as  the  organ  of  the  body.  Thus 
circumstanced,  an  address  was  drawn  up,  and  signed  by  Dr.  Coke  and 
Mr.  Asbury  in  behalf  of  the  American  Methodists,  and  presented  to 
General  Washington. 

“  Dr.  Coke  had  both  a  private  and  a  public  consistency  of  character 
to  sustain.  As  a  subject  of  Great  Britain,  tenacious  of  the  consistency 
of  his  personal  actions,  prudence  would  have  directed  him  not  to  sign. 
But  as  a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  filling  an  official  station  in  the 
Methodist  societies,  and  as  a  superintendent  in  America,  the  welfare 
of  the  gospel  commanded  him  to  promote  its  interests,  and  to  leave  all 


01 


private  considerations  as  unworthy  of  bearing  the  name  of  rival.  Be 
tween  these  alternatives  he  made  a  noble  choice,  and  acted  upon  an 
exalted  principle,  to  which  none  but  superior  spirits  can  aspire.  He 
has  taught  us  by  his  magnanimous  example  that 

Private  respects  to  public  weal  must  yield,” 
and  that  personal  reputation  was  no  longer  his  when  the  interests  of 
Christianity  demanded  the  costly  sacrifice*  By  walking  on  this  vast 
and  comprehensive  circle,  he  has  encircled  his  name  with  wreaths  ot 
laurel,  which  will  continue  to  flourish,  when  the  sigh  ^  smiling  pity^ 
and  of  sneering  condolence,  can  be  no  longer  heard.  Those  who  still 
continue  to  censure  his  conduct  on  the  present  occasion,  now  the 
mists  of  prejudice  are  done  away,  and  all  the  consequences  of  each 
alternative  appear  in  their  proper  bearings,  plainly  tell  us  how  they 
would  have  acted  under  similar  circumstanceSj  if,  like  him^  they  natt 
been  called  to  feel  the  touch  of  Ithuriel’s  spear.  ^ 

“  A  copy  of  this  address  was  introduced  [into  the  British  conter- 
encel  “  as  a  ground  of  censure  against  the  doctor.  It  was  urged 
against  himj  that,  as  a  subject  of  Great  Britain,  it  was  mconsisten 
with  his  character  to  sign  the  address.  That  several  expressions 
therein  contained,  in  favour  of  the  American  government,  implied  a 
severe  reflection  on  our  own,”  [the  British,]  “  and  could  not  just  y 
have  been  used  by  a  British  subject.— That,  as  a  member  ot  the 
Methodist  society  in  England^  and  a  leading  character  in  the  con¬ 
nexion,  his  conduct  was  calculated  to  provoke  the  indignation  ot 
government,— finally,  that  the  address  itself  was  a 
ment  of  Mr,  Wesley's  political  sentiments,  and  tended  to  place  th 
whole  body  of  Methodists”  [in  England]  “in  a  very  equivocal  and 

®“<?0°“coke  heard  these  charges  urged  against  him  in  pkofocnd 
SlT  ENCE 

Under  these  circumstances,  as  some  decisive  steps  vvere  necessary 
to  be  taken  in  this  critical  affair,  it  was  finally  determined  that  the 
name  of  Dr.  Coke  should  be  omitted  in  the  Minutes  for  the  succeeding 
year.  This  prudent  resolution  had  the  desired  effect,  and  the  business 
of  conference  proceeded  and  terminated  in  peace. 

“  But  this  silent  mark  of  disapprobation,  as  was  evident  from  the 
effects  which  followed,  was  on  the  whole  JJ^re  than  reaU 

The  doctor  still  maintained  his  rank  in  Mr.  Wesley  s  affectionate 
regard,  and  continued  to  retain  those  offices  which  he  had  hiHierto 
iilhd.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  conference  he  proceeded  as  though 
nothing  disagreeable  had  occurred,  travelling  through  the  societies  in 
the  same  manner  as  he  had  travelled  before  he  went  to  Ainerica. 

Drew’s  Life  of  Dr.  Coke,  pp.  102-145. 

Such  was  the  “  punishment”  then  of  Dr.  Coke.  Such  the  cause 
that  led  to  it.  Such  the  “  profound  silence”  with  which  he  heard  the 
charge,  and  the  Regulus  like  magnanimity  and  self  devotion  with 
which  he  acted,  for  the  sake  of  beloved  America  and  of  American 
Methodists.  And  shall  they  forget  him ;  or  now  remember  him  only 
to  stain  him  with  dishonour !  “Oh  tell  this  not  in  Gath. 

Tt  will  be  observed  that  Mr.  M‘Caine  repeatedly  asserts  that  the 


62 


address  to  General  Washington,  by  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury,  was 
presented  in  the  year  1785.  Now  in  that  address  they  styled  them¬ 
selves  bishops.  We  ask  then,  according  to  Mr.  M‘Caine’s  dates,  why 
was  it  that  neither  Mr.  Wesley  nor  the  British  conference  did  then 
object  to  that  title,  or  censure  Dr.  Coke  for  it'?  Mr.  M‘Caine,  indeed, 
says  his  assuming  that  title,  in  that  address,  was  a  ground  of  the  omis¬ 
sion  of  his  name  in  the  British  Minutes.  This  we  deny.  It  is  an 
assertion  wholly  gratuitous,  and  unsupported  by  one  particle  of  testi¬ 
mony.  But  if  that  address  was  presented  to  General  Washington  in 
1785,  it  follows  that  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  had  taken  the  title  of 
bishops  three  years  previously  to  the  introduction  of  it  into  the  Min¬ 
utes,  and  without  censure.  This  title  was  not  introduced  into  the 
Minutes  till  1788 ;  nor  was  Mr.  Wesley’s  objurgatory  letter  to  Mr. 
Asbury  written  till  September  1788.  And  though  Dr.  Coke  was  com¬ 
pletely  in  Mr.  Wesley’s  power  during  this  interval,^  yet  it  does  not 
appear  that  he  inflicted  on  him  the  smallest  penalty.  Can  Mr.  M‘Caine 
explain  all  this,  and  still  assert  that  the  address  was  presented  to  Ge¬ 
neral  Washington  in  1785  ? 

But  on  the  hypothesis  of  Mr.  M'Caine’s  dates,  there  is  something 
still  more  curious  in  this  affair.  He  maintains  that  the  address  to 
General  Washington  was  presented  before  Dr.  Coke  left  the  United 
States  in  1785  that  it  was  published  in  the  newspapers ;  and  that 
a  copy  of  it  was  introduced  into  the  British  conference,  as  a  ground  of 
Censure  against  the  doctor,  on  his  return  to  England  in  that  same 
year. 

Now,  supposing  these  facts,  is  it  not  a  singular  conjecture  that  Mr. 
Asbury  or  his  friends,  in  order  to  screen  him  also  from  punish¬ 
ment,”  or  with  any  other  motive,  should  have  “  changed  the  date  of 
this  address,”  and  published  it  with  an  “  altered”  date,  four  years  later 
than  the  true  one,  if  it  had  been  published  in  the  newspapers^  four 
years  before  with  its  true  date,  carried  across  the  Atlantic,  and  laid 
before  Mr.  Wesley,  the  British  conference,  and  the  world  !  In  other 
words,  that  Mr.  Asbury,  or  his  friends,  from  any  motive,  should  have 
committed  such  a  stupid  forgery  in  the  falsification  of  an  official  docu¬ 
ment,  when  both  he  and  they  must  have  known  that  the  means  of  their 
exposure  were  so  notorious,  that  their  detection  and  conviction  would 
be  inevitable !  For  it  will  be  recollected  that  the  parties  were  then  all 
living,  and  the  circumstances  all  recent,  and  matters  of  public  noto¬ 
riety.  From  what  principle  so  vile  an  insinuation  could  proceed,  on 
ground  not  only  so  futile,  but  so  perfectly  and  manifestly  absurd,  the 
reader  must  form  his  own  conclusion. 

It  will  by  no  means  excuse  Mr.  M‘Caine  to  say  that  he  does  not 
directly  assert  “  by  whom  this  thing  was  done.”  Every  reader  of  his 
Work  cannot  but  consider  Mr.  Asbury,  or  his  friends,  or  both,  as  impli¬ 
cated.  The  “  History  and  Mystery”  of  the  “  Episcopacy”  of  those 
days  was  his  subject ;  and  the  application  is  so  plain,  that  he  who  runs 
may  read.  Besides,  by  whomsoever  it  was  done,  Mr.  Asbury  must 
either  have  been  privy  to  it,  or  certainly  have  known  it  afterwards,  and 
Dr.  Coke  also.  And  on  this  ground,  at  all  events,  they  stand  impli¬ 
cated  by  this  insinuation,  in  the  guilt  of  having  at  least  countenanced 
7Ti,d  concet^'lod  an  act  of  such  criminality  and  baseness 


G3 

Section  Xlh— Methodist  Episcopacy. 

■  'rhP  followins  views  of  our  Episcopaoy  were  those  of  the  bishop^ 

Ihe  to  _”.„tained  in  the  notes  on  th^  Discipline,  prepared  by 
^emse  ves,  at  the  request  of  the Xieneral  Conference. 

The  most  So«ed  d/v’otees  to  reUgious  establishments,  (the  clergy 

JrnoThing  but  apostolic  u„^ 

confine  the  right  of  Ep  p  y  j  P  it  follows  that  the 

«  that  oach  diocess  had  a  CO  lege  means  superintended  his 

'■^.XSg'Eb.rtn,"  sr5“  fE 

s3r.9‘.E%.i.{;y£— 

£r::',grg  .>.■,  n-  ■>»  «'"inrT„r;r. 

Mr.  Wesley  s  authority,  m  the  pres  ,  father  of  the  connexion, 

Conference.”  Ib  dO  41.  p„„f.,pn„e  lodge  the  power  of  station- 
-<But  why  does  the  General  Conferees  loug^^  On  account  of  their 
ingthe  preachers  m  the  Ep'scopacy^-^^W^ 

entire  confidence  in  it.  ®  General  Conference 

that  confidence  in  any  degree,  take  from  it  this 

will,  upon  evidence  given,  in  p  p  Up^-ayg  a  spirit  of  tyranny  or 
bra.;ch'^  of  its  authority.  ^“1  f  f 

K'SiZ^r ;»  rf  "E  rtr 

through  tyrannical  or  immoral  con  u  ,  ,  c  see  it  highly 

the  men.**  Ib.  42.  , 

.  Perhaps  a  few  others,  who  still  claim  a  very  near  relationship  to  Rome,  oug 
to  have  been  included  m  this  exceplion.  ^  candid  writer  should 

I  With  this  before  our  eyes,  is  it  ,^p^ese.nting  our  churches  as 

attempt  to  excite  odium  against  the  bishops  by  J-epresen  ^ 

Bishops’  property?” 


2.  Mr.  Wesley,  as  the  venerable  founder  (under  God)  of  the  whole 

Methodist  Society,  governed  without  any  responsibility  whatever; _ 

But  the  American  bisho]>5  are  as  responsible  as  any  of  the  preachers. 
They  Vixe  perfectly  sviject  to  the  General  Conference.”  Ib.  42.  The 
\v  ox  As  entirely  drpendanV^  and  ^‘perfectly  subject  f  are  printed  in 
italics  by  the  bishops  themselves,  to  invite  our  particular  attention  to 
this  acknowledged  fact. 

After  naming  one  other  point  of  comparison  between  the  powers  of 
Mr,  Wesley  and  those  of  our  bishops,  viz.  in  the  entire  management 
of  all  the  conference  funds,  which  he  possessed,  and  they  do  not ;  the 
bishops  thus  conclude : 

“  We  have  drawn  this  comparison  between  our  venerable  father 
and  the  American  bishops,  to  show  to  the  world  that  they  possess  not, 
and  we  may  add,  they  aim  not  to  possess,  that  power  which  he  exer¬ 
cised,  and  had  a  right  to  exercise,  as  the  father  of  the  connexion  : — 
that,  on  the  contrary,  they  are  perfectly  dependant ;  that  their  power, 
their  usefulness,  themselves,  are  entirely  at  the  mercy  of  the  General 
Confer ence.^^  lb.  43-44. 

Now  what  more  can  we  desire  than  such  acknowledgments  and 
declarations,  freely  and  voluntarily  made  by  the  bishops  themselves? 
And  with  what  propriety,  in  the  face  of  them,  can  our  Episcopacy  be 
denominated  an  “  absolute  Episcopacy or  the  bishops  our  “  masters?’* 

The  power  of  stationing  the  preachers  is  certainly  a  great  and 
weighty  power,  for  the  due  and  faithful  exercise  of  which  the  bishops 
should  be  carefully  and  watchfully  held  to  a  strict  responsibility.  But 
it  is  a  power  vested  in  them  by  the  preachers  themselves,  and  is  liable 
to  be  modified,  or  to  be  wholly  taken  from  them,  whenever  the  body 
of  preachers  shall  judge  such  a  measure  expedient  or  necessary.  The 
weight  of  this  power  rests  upon  the  itinerant  preachers.  But  surely 
they,  of  all  men,  have  the  least  right  to  complain  of  it,  since  the  vesting 
of  it,  and  the  continui  ig  of  it  in  the  bishops,  is  their  own  voluntary 
act  and  choice.  They  have  submitted,  and  continue  to  submit  to  it, 
often,  doubtless,  with  many  and  great  inconveniences  and  sacrifices, 
because  they  have  believed  it  most  efficient,  with  an  itinerant  minis^ 
try,  for  the  spread  of  the  gospel,  and  for  the  good  of  the  church.  And 
it  is  believed  that  our  members,  with  very  few  exceptions- have  always 
been  of  the  same  opinion. 

The  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  have  no  control 
whatever  over  the  decisions  of  either  a  general  or  an  annual  conference. 
Whereas  the  bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  have  an  ab¬ 
solute  negative  in  their  general  conventions,  and  no  act  whatever  can  be 
passed  in  that  church,  without  the  consent  of  the  house  of  bishops, 
though  it  might  even  be  unanimously  agreed  to,  and  ardently  desired 
by  the  whole  body  both  of  the  clergy  and  laity :  a  power  certainly 
greatly  superior  to  any  power  possessed  by  the  bishops  of  the  Method¬ 
ist  Episcopal  Church. 

Another  evidence  of  the  dependence  of  our  bishops  on  the  General 
Conference,  is,  that  if  they  cease  to  travel  without  the  consent  of  that 
body,  they  become  immediately  incapable  of  exercising  among  us  any 
Episcopal,  or  other  ministerial  function.  In  other  words,  as  the  bishops 
in  their  notes  interpret  this  part  of  our  Discipline,  they  are  obliged 
to  travel  till  the  General  Conference  pronounces  them  worn  out,  or 


superannuated.”  A  restriction,  which,  as  they  justly  remark,  is  nut 
to  be  found  in  any  other  Episcopal  church. 

Affain  ;  a  bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  cannot  ordain 
a  single  individual,  except  in  the  mode  prescribed  by  the  General  Con¬ 
ference  by  the  vote  and  direction  of  an  annual  conference. 

In  the  notes  on  the  Discipline,  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  did 
indeed  claim  the  right,  on  their  responsibility  to  God,  binding  them  to 
“lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man,”  to  “  suspend  the  ordination  ol  an 
elected  person,”  if  such  reasons  appeared  clearly  against  it  that  they 
could  not  proceed  with  a  good  conscience.  But  they,  at  the  same  time, 
acknowledged  the  necessity  and  the  obligation  of  great  caution,  in  the 
exercise  of  this  claim.  And  we  are  not  aware  that  a  single  instance 
of  the  actual  exercise  of  it  has  ever  yet  occured,  since  the  organization 
of  our  church.  That  cases  might  occur,  and  that  facts  might  take 
place,  or  come  to  light,  even  after  the  election  of  individuals  for  ^ 
orders,  in  which  it  would  be  the  conscientious  duty  of  a  bishop  to 
suspend  proceeding  in  the  ordination,  there  can  be  few  persons  so 
unreasonable  as  not  to  admit.  And  how  the  claim  of  this  right  to 
“  suspend”  an  ordination  in  such  a  case  can  be  represented  as  censu¬ 
rable  on  the  part  of  the  bishops,  as  it  has  been  by  a  late  writer,  we  do 
not  understand.  It  is,  in  fact,  expressly  required  of  them  by  the  Dis¬ 
cipline. — “  If  any  crime  or  impediment  be  objected,  the  bishop  shall 
surcease  from  ordaining  that  person,  until  such  time  as  the  party  ac¬ 
cused  shall  be  found  clear  of  the  crime.” — See  the  form  of  ordaining 

both  deacons  and  elders.  j-  c 

The  late  Rev.  John  Dickins,  in  his  remarks  on  the  proceedings  oi 
Mr.  Hammet,  says,  in  relation  to  the  superiority  of  our  bishops,  as  de¬ 
rived  not  from  their  “  separate  ordination,”  but  from  the  suffrages  of 
the  body  of  ministers,— “  Pray,  when  was  it  otherwise?”— and  “how 
can  the  conference  have  power  to  remove  Mr.  Asbury  and  ordam 
another  to  fill  his  place,  if  they  see  it  necessary,  on  any  other  ground  2 
Mr.  Hammet  had  said,  “  Let  your  superintendents  know  therefore,— 
that  their  superiority  is  derived  from  your  suffrages  and  not  by  virtue 
of  a  separate  ordination.  Gain  and  establish  this  point,  and  you  sap 
the  foundation  of  all  arbitrary  power  in  your  church  for  ever.  Mi. 
Dickins  replies,  “  Now  who  ever  said  the  superiority  of  the  bishops 
was  by  virtue  of  a  separate  ordination  1  If  this  gave  them  their  supe¬ 
riority,  how  came  they  to  be  removable  by  the  conference  ?  If  then 
what  you  there  plead  for  will  sap  the  foundation  of  all  arbitrary  power, 
it  has  been  sapped  in  our  connexion  from  the  first  establishment  of  our 
constitution.”  p,  31.  Again,  he  remarks,  p.  32,  “  We  all  know  Mr, 
Asbury  derived  his  official  power  from  the  conference,  and  therefore 
his  office  is  at  their  disposal.”  “  Mr.  Asbury,”  he  says  in  another 
place,  “  was  thus  chosen  by  the  conference  both  before  and  after  he 
was  ordained  a  bishop  ;  and  he  is  still  considered  as  the  person  of 
their  choice,  by  being  responsible  to  the  conference,  who  have  power 
to  remove  him,  and  fill  his  place  with  another,  if  they  see  it  necessary. 
And  as  he  is  liable  every  year  to  be  removed,  he  may  be  considered  ^ 
their  annipil  choice.”  p.  15.  The  high  standing  of  John  Dickins  is 
too  well  known  to  need  any  statement  of  it  here.  He  was  also  the 
particular  and  most  intimate  friend  of  bishop  Asbury.  And  the 


pamphiet  containing  the  above  sentiments,  was  published  by  the  una¬ 
nimous  request  of  the  conference  held  at  Philadelphia,  Sept.  5,  1792 ; 
and  may  be  therefore  considered  as  expressing  the  views  both  of  that 
conference  and  of  bishop  Asbury,  in  relation  to  the  true  and  original 
character  of  Methodist  Episcopacy.  It  may  be  confidently  affirmed, 
then,  that  the  Methodist  Episcopacy,  if  preserved  on  its  original  basis, 
as  it  ever  should  be,  has  as  little  independent  power  as  the  Episcopacy 
of  any  other  Episcopal  church  whatever. 

Section  XIII. —  Title  Bishop, 

Episcopos,  (Greek,) — Episcopus,  (Latin,)  a  bishop,  or  overseer. 
The  Hebrew  Paked,  as  the  Greek  Episcopos,— whence  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  bischop,  and  our  English  word  bishop, -^is  any  man  that  hath 
a  charge  and  office  for  any  business,  civil  or  ecclesiastical.  It  is 
derived  from  Biri,  (epij  super,  and  (Txograjv  (skopein,)  intendere, — 
superintendere,  to  superintend.  And  hence  superintendent,  from  the 
Latin,  is  of  precisely  the  same  import  as  bishop  from  the  Greek. — 
Inter  fl^ecTours^ov,  tamen,  et  Eyj^xottov,  hoc  interest:  nomen 

est  ordinis :  E'Tnfl'xo'rog  nomen  in  illo  ordine  officii.”  Between  bishop 
and  presbyter  there  is,  nevertheless,  this  difference.  Presbyter  is  the 
name  of  an  order.  Bishop  is  the  name  of  an  ojfice  in  that  order.  See 

Leigh’s  Critica  Sacra.  . 

Originally  “  the  name  Eirjtrxo-Troi,”  [Episcopoi,  bishops,]  given  to 
the  governors  of  the  church  under  the  gospel,”  was  “  a  name  import¬ 
ing  dutij  more  than  honour ;  and  not  a  title  above  presbyter Ireni- 

cum,  p.  286.  .  . 

We  say,  then,  with  the  Rev.  Asa  Shinn,  that  ‘‘intelligent  Chris¬ 
tians,  before  they  either  vindicate  or  vilify  a  simple  name,  will  inquire 
into  its  precise  signification.”  We  have  done  so  with  regard  to  our 
term  bishop.  And  the  inquiry  conducts  us  to  the  conclusion,  that  it 
may  be  vindicated,  but  canuot  be  justly  vilifiwl. 

The  following  is  the  Rev.  Nicholas  Snethen’s  account  of  the  intro¬ 
duction  of  the  term  bishop,  in  addressing  our  superintendents. 

Mr.  O’Kelly  had  asserted  that  “about  the  year  1787^  Francis 
directed  the  preachers  whenever  they  wrote  to  him  to  title  him 
bishop  ”  Mr.  Snethen  replies,  that  among  Mr.  Asbury’s  acquaintance 
this  assertion  sufficiently  refutes  itself,  and  that  no  one  who  has  ever 
known  the  man  can  possibly  give  it  credit  for  a  moment ;  and  adds, 

“  Some  time  after  ordination  was  introduced  among  us,  several  ot 
the  ministers  altered  the  inscription  of  their  letters  to  each  other,  from 
“  Mr  ”  to  “  Rev.”  Some  were  dissatisfied ;  they  thought  that  it  savoured 
more*  of  pride  than  of  piety  ;  others  had  more  serious  scruples,  and 
even  doubted  whether  it  were  not  impious  to  address  men  in  a  style 
and  title  given  to  Jehovah  himself,  as  in  Psalm  cxi,  9.  ‘  Holy  and 

reverend  is  his  name.’  In  the  conference  for  17S7,  this  was  made  a 
subject  of  conversation,  for  the  sake  of  those  of  scrupulous  consciences. 
The  conference  advised  that  every  one  should  use  his  own  choice  ; 
and  that  those  who  doubted  the  propriety  of  Reverend,  gwe  the 

simple  name,  with  the  official  character,  as  bishop,  elder,  or  deacon. 
It  was  not  thought  proper  to  expose  this  little  circumstance  in  print. 
Reply  to  James  O’Kelly,  pp.  10-11. 


r  mi  «  rwtv  exists.  No  man  is  obliged  to  style  our  gene- 

The  s®""® bishops  Any  that  choose  to  retain  the  origmai 
tal  superintendents  Disnops  J  libertv  to  do  so,  whether  in 

title  of  J  ’  BTsome  the  latter  title  is  still  most  genCTally 

writing,  or  “{  all  of  us.  it  is  frequently  used,  without 

used;  and  by  mo&i,  J  ,  i  .  equally  proper,  but 

scruple,  as  accmding  to  Mr.  Snethen’s  statement,  the 

equally  ‘he  title  bishop  less  ex- 

conference  of  1787  seem  to  ^  ^jj^t  of  Reverend;  and 

ceptionable  to  scrupulous  con  ’  scrupled  the  propriety  of 

advised  the  use  of  the  former  by  thosejto  s^^  p^^^  ^.^tundersiood 
using  the  latter.  Yet  t'o®  ‘‘  >  ;  nor  some  other  gentle- 

that  Mr.  M>Came  himself  has  o'®^^'  X\nuch  less  augusb 
men  of  our  modern  days,  who  "“‘'*"^0  states  that,  ‘‘  In  1786, 

Mr.  M  Came,  p.  ’  Wesley  three  persons  to  be  appointed 

Mr.  Asbury  proposed  to  Mr.  wesi  y  p  Asburv.”  Mr.  Wes- 

bishops  for  the  United  States,  o  e„gfaven  in  characters  of  gold, 

ley’s  I*®  “^OuJ^rmy^fo  there  shall  be  no  a«AiisA«Ts  in  the 

LZdis:  Sh.  '’LtU  me 

have  him  Winted^emt  J 

this  statement,  we  ask,  m  Wesley  himself  consi- 

did  he  refuse  to  appoint  “  ItUry^^^^^  a«/tbishop; 

Because  this  would  have  bee  superintendent  under 

him  ^oMd  ha7e  bL^n  a  bish'op.  ^Accordirig 

bishop,  and  su.erinUndent,  simply 

following  extract  of  a  letter  from  the  late  Rev.  and  venerable 
Wm.  Watters,  will  shed  further  light  on  this  subject. 

“''"•mt  ttmSld  be  those  who  through  prejudice,  think  the 
Methodl^  they  have  had  bishops  -on| ‘bem, 

Tnornlr  rom  XTeginnil;:  'fouM  ajrn.t  « 

had  one  among  us  who  b^^  ^P®""^/®^;,^^  the  gene- 

this  person  was  solely  hy^  preachers 


fhmd  s  burm^kly  with  the  Episcopal  Church, 
tbnary  war,  the  EpiLopal  clergy  the  ordi- 

greatest  number  of  our  societies  we  had  "®;™y  [“t%d  manV 

nances  of  baptism  and  the  Lord’s  supper.  It  was  this  tliat  tea 


68 


of  our  preachers,  as  you  well  know,  to  take  upon  them  the  adminis¬ 
tration  of  the  ordinances.  Mr.  Rankin,  who  was  our  first  general 
assistant,  after  staying  the  time  in  this  country  lie  came  for,  returned 
home.  This  was  at  a  time  when  we  had  no  intercourse  with  Eng¬ 
land,  and  Mr^  Asbury,  the  only  old  preacher  that  determined  (in  those 
perilous  times,)  to  give  up  his  parents,  country,  and  all  his  natural 
connections,  was  finally  and  unanimously  chosen  by  the  preachers 
(assembled  in  conference,)  our  general  assistant.  He  continued  such, 
until  the  year  1784,  when  the  doctor  came  over,  and  not  only  the 
name  of  general  assistant  was  ciiauged  to  that  of  superintendent,  but 
we  formed  ourselves  into  a  separate  church.  This  change  was  pro¬ 
posed  to  us  by  Mr.  Wesley,  after  we  had  craved  his  advice  on  the 
subject ;  but  could  not  take  effect  till  adopted  by  us  :  which  was  done 
in  a  deliberate,  formal  manner,  at  a  conference  called  for  that  purpose : 
in  which  there  was  not  one  dissenting  voice.  Every  one  of  any  dis¬ 
cernment,  must  see  from  Mr.  Wesley’s  circular  letter  on  this  occasion, 
as  well  as  from  every  part  of  our  mode  of  church  government,  that  we 
openly  and  avowedly  declared  ourselves  Episcopalians ,  though  the 
doctor  and  Mr.  Asbury,  were  called  superintendents.  After  a  few 
years,  the  name  from  superintendent  was  changed  to  bishop.  But 
from  first  to  last,  the  business  of  general  assistant,  superintendent,  or 
bishop,  has  been  the  same  ;  only  since  we  have  become  a  distinct 
church,  he  has,  with  the  assistance  of  two  or  three  elders  ordained 
our  ministers ;  whose  business  is  to  preside  in  our  conferences,  and 
in  case  of  an  equal  division  on  a  question,  he  has  the  casting  vote ; 
but  in  no  instance  whatever,  has  he  a  negative,  as  you  are  told.  He 
has  also  the  stationing  of  all  the  travelling  preachers,  under  certain 
limitations.  Which  power  as  it  is  given  him  by  the  General  Confer¬ 
ence,  so  it  can  be  lessened,  or  taken  from  him  at  any  time  conference 
sees  fit.*  But  while  he  superintends  the  whole  w'ork,  he  cannot  interfere 
with  the  particular  charge  of  any  of  the  preachers  in  their  stations. 
To  see  that  the  preachers  fill  their  places  with  propriety,  and  to 
understand  the  state  of  every  station,  or  circuit,  that  he  may  the  better 
make  the  appointment  of  the  preachers,  is  no  doubt,  no  small  part  of 
his  duty ;  but  he  has  nothing  to  do  with  receiving,  censuring,  or  ex¬ 
cluding  members ;  this  belongs  wholly  to  the  stationed  preacher  and 
members.”  Memoirs,  p.  103. 

Mr.  M’Caine,  p.  34,  reproaches  our  fathers  with  entering  Mr^ 
Wesley  in  the  Minutes  of  1789  as  a  “  bishop,” — “  after  it  was  known 
that  the  very  term  was  so  extremely  offensive  to  him.”  This  is  not 
correct.  They  did  enter  him  as  exercising  “  the  Episcopal  office.'"’ 
But  they  did  not  entitle  him  “  bishop.”  The  former  was  not  offensive 
to  him.  He  well  knew  the  distinction  between  the  title  and  the  office. 
The  latter  he  did  exercise,  and  asserted  his  right  to  exercise  it.  And 
we  have  already  shown  from  the  extract  of  Dr.  Coke’s  Journals,  that 
the  statement  of  his  having  been  so  entered  in  the  American  Minutes, 
was  published  in  England,  in  Mr.  Wesley’s  lifetime,  and  dedicated  to 

+  As  our  General  Conferences  were  originally  constituted,  they  possessed  tlie 
power  of  our  whole  body  of  ministers.  Whenever  the  powers  of  the  present 
delegated  General  Conference  are  spoken  of  in  this  work,  it  is  of  course  to  be  luf 
derstpod  agreeably  to  the  principles  of  the  restrictwe  limitations 


iiimseif.  This  gave  him  no  offence.  On  the  contrary,  when  pressiaU 
concerning  his  acting  as  a  bishop,”  he  did  not  deny,  but  justified  it, 
and  answered,  **  I  firmly  believe  that  I  am  a  Scriptural  Episcopos  aa 
much  as  any  man  in  England,  or  in  Europe.  For  the  uninterrupted 
succession  I  know  to  be  a  fable  which  no  man  ever  did  or  can  prove.’^ 

Letter  to  the  Rev. - ,  on  the  Church.  Works,  vol.  xvi,  English 

edition. 


Section  XIV. — Organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal,  Church, 

Our  argument  has  hitherto  been  conducted  on  the  ground  that  Mr. 
Wesley  did  institute,  and.  did  intend  to  institute,  under  the  title  of 
superintendents,  an  Episcopacy  for  the  American  Methodists;  and 
that  by  Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  Asbury,  and  our  fathers,  it  was  so,  honestly  and 
in  good  faith,  understood.  And  in  this  we  are  well  satisfied  that  th6 
candid  and  intelligent  reader  will  agree. 

But  leaving  out  of  view,  for  argument  sake,  the  recommendation  of 
Mr.  Wesley  altogether,  we  are  still  prepared,  in  the  circumstances 
which  then  existed,  to  defend  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Epis^ 
copal  Church. 

Had  Mr.  Asbury  been  actuated  by  the  dishonourable  motives  of 
ambition  and  self  aggrandizement  imputed  to  him,  how  easy  had  it 
been  for  him  to  have  accomplished  his  purpose,  and  to  have  organized 
a  church  in  America,  with  himself  at  its  head,  independently  of  Mr, 
Wesley,  and  of  the  whole  European  connexion.  And  what  plausible 
pretext,  or  occasion,  did  he  want  1  Early  in  the  revolutionary  struggle, 
every  other  English  preacher  had  fled.  He  alone,  through  the  con¬ 
test,  devoted  himself  to  American  Methodism,  at  the  risk  and  hazard  of 
every  thing  dear.  Mr.  Wesley  himself  had  openly  and  publicly  espoused 
the  royal  cause  against  the  colonies.  This  greatly  embarrassed  the 
American  Methodists,  and  especially  the  preachers,  who  were  watched, 
and  hunted,  and  imprisoned,  and  beaten,  as  his  emissaries;  and, 
through  him,  as  the  disguised  emissaries  of  Great  Britain.  The  so¬ 
cieties,  except  in  very  few  instances,  were  destitute  of  the  sacraments. 
They  could  neither  obtain  baptism  for  their  children,  nor  the  Lord’s 
supper  for  themselves.  On  this  account,  as  early  as  1778,  Mr.  As¬ 
bury  was  earnestly  importuned  to  take  measures  that  the  Methodists 
might  enjoy  the  same  privileges  as  other  churches.  He  resisted  the 
proposal.  Yet  so  serious  was  the  crisis,  that  a  large  number  of  the 
preachers,  to  satisfy  the  urgent  necessities  of  the  societies,  chose  from 
among  themselves  three  senior  brethren,  who  ordained  others  by  the 
imposition  of  their  hands.  Among  these  were  some  of  the  ablest  and 
most  influential  men  then  in  the  connexion.  Surely  no  man  ever  had 
a  fairer,  or  a  more  plausible  opportunity  than  Mr.  Asbury  then  had,  to 
organize  and  to  place  himself  at  the  head  of  the  Methodist  church  in 
America,  independently  of  Mr.  Wesley.  Yet  it  was  he  who,  with  the 
late  venerable  Watters,  Garrettson,  and  others,  resolutely  remained  in 
connexion  with  Mr.  Wesley;  and  rested  not  till  by  his  indefatigable 
labours  the  whole  of  the  seceding  body  were  brought  back,  to  await 
and  to  abide  bv  Mr.  Wesley’s  advice.  And  this  is  the  stime  man,  who, 


witVi  tli6  viicst  dissiiiiuiS’tiow  3,iici  ^ 

S:4:  “  u“  “-i-s  “« "'*ir  “™;‘ 

.,  i. i.  ■» 

another  I  ,  ^  ^  ]yij.  Wesley,  aided  by  other 

Dr.  Coke  was  appointed  P  American  Methodists, 

presbyters,  as  a  general  American  con* 

In  that  character  he^as  exercisl  Episcopal  powers 

ference,  and  with  their  ^  called  a  superintendent. 

among  them,  and  to  ,  chosen  by^the  same  conference,  to  be 

Mr.  Asbury  was  unanimously  cho  y 

a  general  superintendent  g  ^rintendent,  agreeably  to  th^ 

ordained  deacon  and  el  er.  Coke,  a  presbyter  ot  the 

unanimous  voice  of^^Y^thrdWhmcoai  and  ThoLs  Vasey  who 

i'i'StbfSS, .  p,.*,-  ot  .1- 

Tht'intention  of  Iho  confeMOce  .as  w  bfcal'M  a 

sSmEarfirrKob”..' 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  .  ,  ^resbvters,  and  that,  in  such 

Admitting  the  validity  of  ordmation  hyp  by^  contended  for 

an  exigency,  they  may  even  ordain  bjsl>oi^>  ground  is  the 

in  these  pages,  as  we  have  s^o*" J^ey  ^ instituted,  in  such 
Methodist  Episcopacy,  thus  ""^Tmeaitimate,”  unlawful!  It  is  true 

circumstances,  to  be  pronounced  Igt  impartial,  intelligent,  and 

pious  of  other  denorinnation  •  i  ^Yiem  to  do  so  ;  and  not  only 
tainly  done  all  in  his  power  denominations,  but  the  bigotted 

“  the  intelligent  and  pious  of  ot  ^he  avowed  enemies 

and  prejudiced  of  every  descriptio  ,  P  ^  ^g  ^ave  been  expelled 

of  the  Methodist  Church;  within  it;  and  the 

from  her  communion  ;  the  restless  M'Caine’s  book  has 

enemies  of  Christianity  m  g®'??™';.  if  there  be  any  law,  divine 

terms  of  the  edict  be  ®^gP4to’’we  then  insist  that  the  unani- 
If  this  matter  be  pressed  still  lurthe  ,  bishops  was  ol 

mous  election  and  appoiiiting  o  existing,  to  constitute  a 

itself  sufficient,  in  lodgment  oTaS^ 

valid  Episcopacy,  according  to  the  j  g  Stillingfleet. 

and  those  divines  who  authority  was  indi^pen- 

And  let  those  who  maintain  that  ai  Y  ^  ^  ^  remem-^ 

sable  to  its  legitimacy,  Fodu®®  warrant. 

ber  beforehand  that  we  are  not  to  be  g  J  among  the 

If  it  be  objected  that  ‘hose  proceedings  twk  pl 

preachers  only :  we  answer :  This  was,  unaeniau  . 


71 


with  the  original  principle  on  which  the  Methodist  societies  had  been 
srathered  and  united  by  the  preachers,  who  determined  on  vvhat  prin¬ 
ciples  of  discipline  and  of  administration  they  would  devote  themselves 
to^take  charge  of,  to  guide,  and  to  serve,  those  who,  upon  these  prin- 
civles  chose  to  place  themselves  under  their  care,  and  especially  upon 
what  ’principles  they  could  feel  themselves  at  liberty  to  administer  to 

*'inh’ere°wetraTy’law  of  God,  or  man,  making  this  “  illegitimate,” 
unlawful,  on  the  part  of  the  preachers,  let  this  euict  ako  be  produced. 
In  the  days  of  “  the  fathers^’  and  of  the  founders  of  Methodism,  at 
all  events,  both  in  Europe  and  in  America,  we  haprd  the  assertion 
that  these  were  principles  recognised  and  acquiesced  in  by  the 
Methodist  people  also.  That  it  necessarily  follows,  however,  from 
these  premises,  that  any  modification  of  this  system,  in  all  aftertime, 
and  in  any  change  of  circumstances,  is  absolutely  precluded,  is  what 
we  do  not  here  mean  to  say.  Nor  is  that  a  field  into  which  our  pre^ 
sent  subiect  requires  us  at  all  to  enter. 

But  leavino-  out  of  view,  for  the  present,  any  circumstances  which 
might  be  collected  of  the  divine  approbation  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
conference  of  1 784,  from  the  great  and  signal  blessings  which  followed 
upon  the  labours  of  the  preachers,  and  the  special  prosperity  of  the  work 
Irom  that  time,  we  will  conclude  this  part  of  our  subject  with  an  argu¬ 
ment,  which,  with  some  of  our  opponents  perhaps,  may  have  more 

'™We  maintain,  then,  that  the  proceedings  of  that  conference  in  or¬ 
ganizing  the  “  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  with  general 
Ldenti,  vested  with  Episcopal  powers  and  intended  to  act  as  bishops, 
were  in  fact,  if  not  inform,  approved  and  sanctioned  by  the  people 
the  Methodist  people,  of  that  day.  And  that  the  preachers  set  apart 
at  that  confereLe,  in  their  appropriate  and  respective  characters,  as 
deacons  elders,  and  superintendents  or  bishops  were  freely  and  cor- 
dSly  received  ^nd  greeted  by  the  people,  as  such ;  and  the  ^acramen  s 
gladfy  accepted,  as  they  had  long  been  urgently  demanded,  at  then 
handvS.  Our  proofs  follow. 

“  The  Methodists  were  pretty  generally  pleased  at  our  becoming  a 
church  ;  and  heartily  united  together  in  the  plan  which  the  conference 
had  adopted.  And  from  that  time  religion  greatly  revived.  Lee  . 

**‘?25VDe!Imber,  1784.  We  became,  instead  of  a  religious  society, 

a  separate  church,  under  the  name  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal 

This  change  gave  great  satisfaction  through  all  our  societies.  Wil 

ham  Watters,  Memoirs  by  Himself,  p.  102. 

“  The  conference  met  December  1784.  It  was  un^animously  agreed 
that  circumstances  made  it  expedient  for  the  IV^t  o  ist  ^ 

America  to  become  a  separate  body  from  the  Church  of 
They  also  resolved  to  take  the  title,  and  to  be  known  in  future  by  the- 
name  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  They  made  the  Episco¬ 
pal  office  elective, - Mr.  Asbury  was  unanimou^Bly  * 

Coke  was  also  unanimously  received,  jointly  with  him,  to  be  the  sup 
intendents,  or  bishops,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  From 

hat  time  the  Methodist  societies  in  the  United  States  became  an  ind 


j^eftdent  church,  under  the  Episcopal  mode  and  form  of  governmeut, 
^TMs  step  met  with  general  approbation^  both  among  the  preachers  and 
the  members.  Perhaps  we  shall  seldom  find  such  unanimity  of  senti¬ 
ment  upon  any  question  of  such  magnitude.” 

Rev.  Ezekiel  Cooper,  on  Asbury,  pp.  108-109. 

Of  those  who  were  members  of  the  church  at  that  period,  very  few 
are  now  living.  And  of  such  as  are,  these  are  not  they  who  now 
complain  of  that  act.  That  those  who  have  voluntarily  united  them^ 
selves  to  this  church  since,  knowing  it  to  be  thus  constituted ; — and 
some  perhaps  who  have  left  other  churches  to  join  it;-~or  boys  of 
yesterday,  who  but  a  few  days  ago  solicited  admission  into  it,  thus 
organized ; — that  these  should  now  represent  the  government  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as  a  tyrannical  usurpation  over  them,  is 
an  abuse  of  language  so  gross,  that  we  marvel  how  men  of  common 
intellect  or  conscience  can  allow  themselves  in  it. 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Wesley  to  Mr.  Asbury, 
transcribed  from  the  original.  Its  contents  are  in  all  respects  highly 
interesting.  But  it  is  introduced  here  to  show,  that  though  written  so 
recently  after  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and 
at  a  period  when  Mr.  Wesley  could  not  but  have  known  that  event, 
it  does  not  contain  one  syllable  of  censure,  or  of  disapprobation. 

^  Bristol,  September  30,  1785. 

My  dear  Brother, — It  gives  me  pleasure  to  hear  that  God  pros¬ 
pers  your  labours  even  in  the  barren  soil  of  South  Carolina.  Near 
fifty  years  ago,  I  preached  in  the  church  at  Charleston  ^  and  in  a  few 
other  places :  and  deep  attention  sat  on  every  face.  But  I  am  afraid 
few  received  any  lasting  impressions. 

At  the  next  conference  it  will  be  worth  your  while  to  consider 
deeply  whether  any  preacher  should  stay  in  one  place  three  years 
together.  I  startle  at  this.  It  is  a  vehement  alteration  in  the  Method¬ 
ist  discipline.  We  have  no  such  custom  in  England,  Scotland,  or 
freland. 

“  I  myself  may  perhaps  have  as  much  variety  of  matter,  as  many  of 
our  preachers.  Yet  I  am  well  assured,  were  I  to  preach  three  years 
together  in  one  place,  both  the  people  and  myself  would  grow  as  dead 
as  stones.  Indeed  this  is  quite  contrary  to  the  whole  economy  of 
Methodism  :  God  has  always  wrought  among  us  by  a  constant  change 
of  preachers. 

“  Newly  awakened  people  should,  if  it  were  possible,  be  plentifully 
supplied  with  books.  Hereby  the  awakening  is  both  continued  and 
increased. 

In  two  or  three  days  I  expect  to  be  in  London.  I  will  then  talk 
■with  Mr.  Atlay  on  the  head.  Be  all  in  earnest  for  God. 

“  I  am,  your  affectionate  friend  and  brother, 

,T.  Wesley.’* 


Section  XV. — Leaving  Mr.  Wesley"' s  name  off  the  Minutes^ 

The  meaning  of  this  phrase  seems  not  to  have  been  correctly  under-^ 
stood.  In  some  places  Mr.  M‘Caine  asserts  that  Mr.  Wesley’s  name 
was  left  off  in  1785;  and  then  expresses  surprise  that  he,  notwith¬ 
standing,  by  his  letter  of  September  1786,  attempted  “  to  exercise  his 
authority,  as  formerly,  by  desiring  that  Mr.  Whatcoat  should  be 
appointed  a  superintendent.”  In  other  places  he  represents  this  event 
as  having  taken  place  in  1787.  The  confusion  was  in  Mr.  M‘Caine’s 
own  mind,  not  in  the  subject.  This  is  easily  explained. 

In  the  Minutes  of  the  conference  of  1784,  in  answer  to  the  second 
question,  it  was  said,  “  During  the  life  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wesley,  we 
acknowledge  ourselves  his  sons  in  the  gospel,  ready  in  matters  be¬ 
longing  to  church  government  to  obey  his  commands.”  This  Minute 
remained  unaltered  till  the  conference  of  1787.  At  that  conference 
it  was  resolved  to  omit  it.  This  act,  and  this  onlyj  is  what  is  properly 
meant  by  leaving  Mr.  Wesley’s  name  off  the  Minutes^ 

With  regard  to  that  Minute,  the  conference  of  1787  did  not  consi¬ 
der  it  in  the  light  of  a  contract  with  Mr.  Wesley.  It  had  no  such 
character.  It  was  a  mere  voluntary  declaration  on  the  part  of  the 
conference  of  1784,  and  one  which  had  neither  been  required  of  them, 
nor  was  unalterably  binding  on  their  successors ;  who  were  as  free  ta 
judge  and  act  for  themselves  as  their  predecessors  had  been.  If  there 
was  any  thing  improper  in  that  business,  Mr.  Lee  contends,  it  was  in 
originally  adopting  the  Minute,  and  not  in  rescinding  it.  History 
page  127. 

The  declaration  of  the  conference  of  1784  was,  that  “  during  the 
life  of  Mr.  Wesley  they  were  ready  to  obey  his  commands  in  matters 
belonging  to  church  government.'"  That  it  was  not  understood  or 
intended,  however,  from  the  commencement  of  our  organization  as  a 
church,  that  Mr.  Wesley  should,  thereafter,  'personally  appoint  our 
church  officers,  is  susceptible  of  clear  proof  In  the  form  for  “  the  or¬ 
dination  of  superintendents,”  prepared  for  us  by  Mr.  Wesley  himself^ 
and  ‘‘  recommended”  to  us  in  the  Prayer  Book  of  1784,  are  these 
words ; — “  After  the  gospel  and  the  sermon  are  ended,  the  elected 
person  shall  be  presented  by  two  elders  unto  the  superintendent,  say- 
ing,”  &-C.  Again,  in  the  same  form ; — “  Then  the  superintendent 
and  elders  present  shall  lay  their  hands  upon  the  head  of  the  elected  per¬ 
son  kneeling  before  them,”  &,c.  These  passages  indisputably  prove, 
that  Mr.  Wesley  himself  at  that  time  contemplated  the  future  election 
of  our  superintendents,  and  not  that  they  were  to  be  appointed  by  him^ 
principle  Mr.  Asbury  acted  from  the  commencement. 
When  the  design  of  organizing  the  Methodists  in  America  into  an 
independent  Episcopal  church,  was  first  opened  to  the  preachers  then 
present,  by  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Whatcoat,  at  their  first  meeting  at  Bar- 
ratt  s  chapel,  in  Delaware,  on  the  15th  of  November,  1784,  Mr.  As- 
bury  frankly  declared,  ‘‘ If  the  preachers  unanimously  choose  me,  I 
shall  not  act  in  the  capacity  I  have  hitherto  done  by  Mr.  Wesley’s 
appointment.”  Journal,  vol.  i,  p.  376.  This  frank  avowal,  at  that 
oarly  period,  is  a  full  refutation  of  Mr.  M^Caine’s  unworthy  insinuation, 


s  74 

that  Mr-  Asbury  d^sU 

authority  “  at  that  the  plan  was  opened  to 

from  his  lips  "^t^ttion  or  ordination,  he  explicitly  stated 

him,  and  long  before  ^  *  injendent  it  must  be  by  the  voice  of 

that  if  placed  m  the  office  ot  super  he  made  the  same 

his  brethren.  When  the  confer  around.  Nor  was  he 

declaration,  and  f/“Jeived  as  a  superintendent,  until  they 

ordained,  nor  was  Dr.  ^oke  recei  ^ 

were  severally  electe  y  is.  demonstrable  that  the 

ference  concurred  in  tl  e  s*™  viewed  this  subject  in  any  other 

conference  of  n84  '  ■  g„er  to  the  twenty-sixth  ques- 

light;  for  in  the  same  Minutes  be  ordained  a  superin- 

tion,they  expressly  said,  N.  consent  dfamajority  of  tlie  confer- 

tendent,  elder  or  deaco".  Mr  Lee  hays,  “ Most  of  the  preach- 

ence."  In  the  caseof  Mr.  Whatcoat  Mr- Lee  says,  This  they 

ers  objected,  and  would  not  ^be  original  Minutes, 

certainly  had  a  right  to  do  ag.r  Y  ^  organizing  the  Me¬ 
lt  will  be  observed,  f  de„t^Episcopal  Church,”  was 

thodists  ,0  Mr  Asbury  and  the  preachers  present,  in 

first  opened  by  Whatcoat.  Now  there  is  every  reason  to 

the  presence  of  Richard  r,cvrvprt  arauaintance  with  the  mten- 

believe  that  Mr.  Whatcoat  a  a  design  of  form- 

tionsof  Mr.  Wesley -.—and  when  Ur.  independent  Episcopal 

ins  the  Methodists  in  Amenii^  . ^rary  to  Mr.  Wes- 
Church,”  if  Mf- express  it.  The  universally  admit- 
ley’s  A telia/  is  a  su^fficient  guarantee  that  he  would 

as  an  ignorant  tool,  ^et  Mr-^Wesley,^^  recommended  for  the  office 
o^gener^IuS^nterdent.  Such’are  the  consequences  continually 

n*..” 

ence  of  all  oj  Pr^^rs  i"  J;”"' Mr  Rirhard  Whatcoat  may  be 

was  the  first  ‘bearUer  than  had  been  anticipated,  sub- 

time  fixed  for  It,  being  ""'^^^"'‘Merable  inconvenience ;  and  some 

iected  many  of  the  preachers  to  conside  D  attend  at 

in  consequence  of  the  derangement  oUhe.  p  ^j.^laskey,  who 

all.  Among  these,  were  ‘  ^Xg  was  one  of  the  ch  et  causes 
then  travelled  in  Jersey.  This  ^  Dr.  Coke  at  that 

Xh  led  to  the  signing  of  the  instru  §  I  government  in 

conference  in  Which  he  P~X  ^om  the  Hnited  Slates. 

the  Methodist.  Episcopal  Chiircli  uner 


'  The  subsequent  part  of  Mr.  Wesley’s  note  does  not  seem  to  m  al 
present,  however  it  may  have  been  intended,  as  an  absolute  appoint¬ 
ment  of  Mr.  Whatcoat.  In  one  place,  page  43,  Mr.  M‘Caine  himself 
says,  “  It  will  be  seen  then  that  he  does  not  ‘  appoint’  Mr.  Whatcoat  a 
superintendent,  but  simply  expresses  a  ‘  desire’  that  he  ‘  may  be  ^ 
pointed’  one.”  Yet  only  one  page  before  he  expressly  says,  “Mr. 
Wesley  accordingly  appointed  Mr.  Whatcoat.”  So  that,  according  to 
Mr.  M‘Caine,  we  have  both  assertions,  he  did  appoint  him ; — and  he 
did  not.  It  is  certain,  however,  that  Dr.  Coke  contended  that  this 
letter  of  Mr.  Wesley’s  was  an  appointment  of  Mr.  Whatcoat;  and  that 
the  c#nrerence  were  therefore  “  obliged”  to  receive  him,  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  the  Minute  of  1784  to  obey  Mr.  Wesley’s  commands  in 
matters  relating  to  church  government.  And  had  the  conference 
considered  themselves  obliged,  as  Dr.  Coke  contended,  to  receive 
Mr.  Whatcoat,  merely  by  virtue  of  Mr.  Wesley’s  autWity,  they 
might  have  been  equally  required  by  the  same  authority  to  submit  to 
the  recall  of  Mr.  Asbury.  Considering  it  therefore  as  their  right, 
agreeably  to  the  form  of  ordination,  and  to  the  rule  adopted  by  the 
conference  of  1784,  to  elect  their  superintendents;  and  finding  that 
the  Minute  respecting  obeying  Mr.  Wesley  in  matters  belonging  to 
church  government,  was  likely  to  become  a  source  of  contention,  and 
to  be  construed  in  a  sense  which  the  conference  of  1784  never  intend¬ 
ed,  so  as  to  deprive  them  of  that  right,  they  resolved  to  rescind  it,  and 
accordingly  did  so.  But  this  act  did  not  in  any  degree  proceed  from 
want  of  personal  respect  or  regard  for  Mr.  Wesley.  At  the  very  same 
time  they  addressed  an  affectionate  letter  to  him  expressing  their 
attachment ;  and  their  desire,  if  it  were  practicable,  that  he  could  visit 
them,  and  become  personally  acquainted  with  their  affairs.  For  they 
did  not  believe  it  possible  for  him,  at  the  distance  of  three  thousand 
miles,  to  judge  as  correctly  respecting  their  superintendents  as  they 
could  who  were  on  the  spot.  They  did  believe  also  that  unjust  repre¬ 
sentations  of  Mr.  Asbury  had  been  made  to  him,  by  some  person,  or 
persons,  unfriendly  to  Mr.  Asbury  ;  and  that  if  they  accepted  of  Mr, 
Whatcoat  merely  by  his  authority,  in  these  circumstances,  it  might 
probably  lead  to  Mr.  Asbury’s  recall.  They  therefore  declined  to 
receive  Mr.  Whatcoat.  But  it  was  the  conference  that  declined,  as 
Mr.  Lee  states,  and  not  Mr.  Asbury,  as  we  shall  now  further  prove.* 

As  Mr.  M‘Caine,  on  this  subject,  has  only  revived  and  new  dressed 

*  One  of  Mr.  M‘Caine’s  unnamed  authorities  says,  “  About  this  time  there  was 
a  great  rumour  in  London  concerning  the  strides  taken  by  Mr.  Asbury  for  the  ex¬ 
tent  of  power,  and  one  elderly  gentleman,  the  Rev.  T.  R.,”  [Thomas  Rankin,  we 
presume,]  “  said  it  would  be  right  to  recall  a  man  of  that  ambitious  turn.  Mrs. 
Asbu'i'y'^  [the  mother  of  bishop  Asbury]  “  heard  of  this  saying,  and  intimated  to  her 
son  she  hoped  to  see  him  shortly  in  England.” 

Mr.  Snethen  says  also,  “  Mr.  Asbury  vVas  the  only  English  preacher  that  adopted 
the  American  country,  and  was  determined  to  stand  or  fall  with  the  cause  of  inde¬ 
pendence  ;  all  the  rest  returned,  and  one  at  least  was  not  very  well  affected  towards 
liim:  and  Mr.  Asbury’s  intentions  were  questioned,  and  Mr.  Wesley  was  advised 
to  keep  a  watchful  eye  over  the  great  water.”  Answer  to  J.  O’Kelly’s  Vindication, 
page  18. 

It  appears  too,  from  Mr.  Snethcn’s  account,  that  a  preacher  who  was  expelled  in 
1792,  had  been  misrepresenting  Mr.  Asbury,  and  imposing  on  Mr.  Wesley.  Through 
hisa  '^d  Mr.  Hammett  endeavoured  to  stab  the  character  of  Mr.  Asbury.  Mr.  O’Kclly 


the  old  charges  of  Mr.  O’Kelly,  to  refute  them  we  have  only  to  adopt 
the  former  refutation  of  Mr.  O’Kelly  by  Mr.  Snethen. 

Mr  O’Kelly  had  asserted  “  Francis  was  opposed  to  a  joint  superin¬ 
tendent.”— “  For  a  refutation  of  this  charge,”  says  Mr.  Snethen  ‘‘see 
the  following  testimony.”— The  certificates  of  Dr.  Coke,  of  Fhilip 
Bruce,  and  of  Mr.  Whatcoat  himself. 

«  When  Thomas  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  met  m  Charleston,  1  homas 
Coke  informed  him,  that  Mr.  Wesley  had  appointed  Richard  What¬ 
coat,  as  a  joint  superintendent,  and  Mr.  Asbury  m  the  ap¬ 

pointment,  as  did  the  Charleston  conference  when  it  was  laid  before 
them.— Thomas  Coke  proposed  the  appointment  to  the  Virginia  con¬ 
ference,  and  to  his  great  pain  and  disappointment,  James  O  Kelly 
most  strenuously  opposed  it ;  but  consented  that  the  Baltimore  con¬ 
ference  might  decide  it,  upon  condition  that  the  Virginia  conference 
miffht  send  a  deputy  to  explain  their  sentiments. 

Jan.  7,  1796.  Signed.  Thomas  Coke. 

“I  perfectly  remember  that  Mr.  O’Kelly  opposed  the  appointment 
of  Richard  Whatcoat ;  and  that  Mr.  Asbury  said  enough  to  him  and 
me,  to  convince  us  that  he  was  not  opposed  to  the  appointment. 
Norfolk,  Nov.  30,  1796.  Signed.  Phiilip  Bruce. 

“  Mr.  Asbury  was  not  opposed  to  my  being  joint  superintendent  with 
himself.  After  receiving  Mr.  Wesley’s  letter  he  wrote  to  me  from 
Charleston,  upon  the  subject.  As  I  have  not  the  letter  by  me  at 
present,  I  cannot  give  the  contents  verbatim  ;  but  as  well  as  1  recol¬ 
lect,  the  conclusion  was— “  And  if  so  you  must  meet  me  at  the  W  arm- 

springs,  and  we  will  make  out  a  plan  for  your 

tinent”  Signed.  K.  whatcoat. 

“  How  could  he”  (Mr.  O’Kelly)  says  Mr.  Snethen,  “  publish  such 
an  ideal  Had  he  forgotten  the  conversation  which  passed  betvveen 
himself  and  Mr.  Asbury,  at  Dick’s  ferry,  upon  Dan  rivm  ?  in  whi^ 
Mr.  Asbury  told  him  it  would  be  best  to  accept  Richard  Whatcoat. 
Rev.  N.  Snethen’s  reply  to  James  O’Kelly’s  apology,  pp.  9-10. 

We  may  add  also  that  Mr.  Snethen  has  as  triumphantly  vindi¬ 
cated  Mr.  Asbury  from  “  the  smallest  blame”  in  relation  to  the  leaving 
of  Mr.  Wesley’s  name  off  the  Minutes.  Mr.  O’Kelly  had  asserted 
that  “  Francis  took  with  him  a  few  chosen  men  and  in  ^  ^a^estine 
manner  expelled  John,  whose  surname  was  Wesley,  from  the  Method¬ 
ist  Episcopal  Church.”  Mr.  Snethen  replies, 

“  Surely  an  author  that  will  publish  such  a  slander  against  an  mno- 
cent  man,  is  but  little  better  than  he  who  would  be  guilty  of  the 
charge.  Mr.  Asbury  has  given  the  compiler  a  particular  detail  o 
every  circumstance  relative  to  himself,  that  had  the  most  remote  re¬ 
lation  to  the  leaving  Mr.  Wesley’s  name  out  of  the  American  Minutes ; 

Tised  the  materials  which  they  had  prepared  to  his  hand  :  and  Mr.  M‘Caine  has 
avaUed  himself  of  them  all,  with  the  addition  of  Mr.  Kewley  s  productions,  bu 

without  naming  his  authorities.  qict  nf  Oct 

♦  Let  the  reader  compare  these  certificates  with  the  letter  of  the  31st  ot  . 
1789  which  Mr.  M‘Caine,  p.  47,  imputes  to  Mr.  Wesley,  in  which  it  is  stated  tha 
Mr.  Asbury  “flatly  refused^to  receive  Mr.  Whatcoat.”  From  this  comparison  i 
is  certain,  either  that  Mr.  Wesley  never  wrote  that  letter  as  it  is  given  to  lu  .  o  . 
ho  did,  that  he  had  been  imposed  on  by/aise  informah(m. 


which  makes  it  appear  that  Mr.  Ashury  was  not  des^rmjig  of  the 
smallest  blame  in  the  lohole  business ;  and  the  compiler”  Mr.  Snethen, 
“  is  certain  Dr.  Coke,  and  all  the  preachers  then  living,  who  ivere 
at  that  time  members  of  the  conference  were  perfectly  satisfecl  that  Mr. 
Asbury  was  entirely  innocent  of  the  charge.”  Reply  to  Mr.  O’Kelly’s 
Apology,  p.  12.* 

On  the  whole,  viewing  this  subject  with  a  candid  and  alfectionate 
reverence  for  all  parties,  we  do  not  say  that  a  gentler  and  more  con¬ 
ciliatory  course  on  the  part  of  that  conference,  in  relation  to  Mr.  Wes¬ 
ley  personally,  might  not  have  been,  perhaps,  the  more  excellent  way. 
But  this  is  submitted  with  all  our  added  light,  and  when  the  excite¬ 
ments,  the  apprehensions,  and  the  embarrassments  of  that  day,  are 
wholly  gone.  Yet  we  do  say,  that,  had  we  lived  in  the  days  of 
“  our  fathers,”  it  is  highly  probable  that  a  majority  of  us  would  have 
felt,  and  judged,  and  acted,  as  a  majority  of  them  did  ;  and  very  doubtr 
ful  whether  we,  or  their  censors,  would  have  done  better. 

At  one  time,  Mr.  Wesley’s  name,  to  use  the  common  phrase,  was 
left  off  the  American  Minutes.  At  another.  Dr.  Cokeh  was  omitted 
in  the  English  Minutes.  And  at  yet  another  (1778)  Mr.  Asbury’s 
name  also  was  omitted  in  the  American  Minutes.  In  each  case  ft 
was  done  from  what  were  then  deemed  prudential  considerations.-*- 
With  our  present  lights,  we  may  doubt  perhaps  the  real  necessity  of 
either  of  them.  Yet  are  we  prepared  to  assert,  with  confidence,  what 
might,  and  would  have  been  the  effects,  if  these  measures  had  not 
been  adopted  ?t  ' 

Mr.  M‘Caine  is  also  displeased  that,  at  the  death  of  Mr.  Wesley,  no 
account  of  him  was  given  in  the  American  Minutes.  We  wish  this 
had  been  otherwise.  But  if  he  can  believe  that  the  omission  resulted 
from  contempt'^  of  Mr.  Wesley  we  must  leave  him  to  enjoy  his 

*  Since  writing  the  above  we  have  seen  a  statement  from  Mr.  Snethen  of  the- 
circumstances  in  which  his  publications  respecting  Mr.  0‘KeIIy  were  compiled. — > 
it  does  not  appear,  however,  to  require  any  alteration  of  what  we  have  written. — 
The  facts  and  documents  remain  the  same.  We  are  well  satisfied  also  that  Mr. 
Snethen  would  never,  even  as  a  member  of  a  committee,  have  published  any  thing 
Avhich  he  did  not  himself  believe.  And  we  are  equally  satisfied  that  he  always  had 
and  still  has,  too  high  an  opinion  of  bishop  Asbury’s  personal  moral  worth,  to  be. 
lieve  for  a  moment  that  he  would  have  furnished  either  documents,  or  any  state, 
ment  of  facts,  even  in  his  own  defence,  which  he  knew  to  be  either  forged  or  false. 

t  With  respect  to  the  “  rejecting  of  Mr.  Wesley,”  or  leaving  his  name  off  the  Mi¬ 
nutes,  the  following  is  Mr.  Asbury’s  statement. 

“  I  was  amazed  to  hear  that  my  dear,  aged  friend,  Benjamin  Evans,  (now  gone 
to  glory)  was  converted  to  the  new  side  by  being  told  by  J.  O’Kelly  that  I  had 
offended  Mr.  Wesley,  and  that  he  being  about  calling  me  to  account,  I  cast  him  oft* 
altogether.  But,  quere,  did  not  J.  O’K.  set  aside  the  appointment  of  Richard  What* 
coat  ?  and  did  not  the  conference  in  Baltimore  strike  that  minute  out  of  our  disci¬ 
pline  which  was  called  a  rejecting  of  Mr.  Wesley  ?  and  now  does  J.  O’K.  lay  all  the 
blame  on  me  ?  It  is  true,  I  never  approved  of  that  binding  minute.  I  did  not  think 
it  practical  expediency  to  obey  Mr.  Wesley,  at  three  thousand  miles  distance,  in 
all  matters  relative  to  church  government ;  neither  did  brother  Whatcoat,  nor  seve¬ 
ral  others.  At  the  first  General  Conference  I  was  mute  and  modest  when  it  passed, 
and  I  was  mute  when  it  was  expunged.  For  this  Mr.  Wesley  blamed  me,  and  was 
displeased  that  I  did  not  rather  reject  the  whole  connexion,  or  leave  them,  if  they 
did  not  comply.  But  I  could  not  give  up  the  connexion  so  easily,  after  labouring 
and  sufferiiig  so  many  years  with  and  for  them.” — Journal,  vol.  ii,  p.  270. 

■  10 


7S 


opinion.  The  adoption  of  such  a  sentiment  requires  a  strong  predis¬ 
position,  and  desire  to  believe  it.* 

The  truth  seems  to  be,  that,  as  the  deaths  of  American  preachers 
are  not  mentioned  in  the  British  Minutes,  so  the  deaths  of  the  European 
preachers  are  not  mentioned  in  the  American  Minutes  ;  although,  in 
a  general  sense,  we  are  all  regarded  as  one  body.  In  the  case  of  Mr.  i 

Wesley,  an  exception  to  this  general  mode  of  proceeding,  might  doubt¬ 
less  have  been  made  with  great  propriety.  But  that  not  a  particle  of 
any  thing  like  “  cold  neglect”  or  “  contempt”  of  Mr.  Wesley  had  place 
in  the  mind  of  Mr.  Asbury,  on  that  occasion,  we  have  the  explicit  tes¬ 
timony  of  Mr.  Moore.  Even  on  receiving  from  Mr.  Wesley  the  letter 
of  Sept.  1788,  Mr.  Moore  says,  “  Mr.  Asbury  lost  none  of  his  veneration 
for  his  father  in  the  gospel,”  Mr.  Wesley  ;  and  as  a  proof  of  this  he 
cites  the  entry  which  Mr.  Asbury  made  in  his  journal,  on  the  occasion 
of  the  death  of  that  dear  man  of  God  in  which  after  expressing 
himself  in  the  highest  terms  of  Mr.  Wesley’s  character  and  attain¬ 
ments,  Mr.  Asbury  adds, — I  conclude  his  equal  is  not  to  be  found 
among  all  the  sons  he  hath  brought  up,  nor  his  superior  all  the 

^ons  of  Adam.'''  J^if^  of  Wesley ^  vol.  ii,  p.  286.  With  what  face, 
after  this,  can  Mr.  Asbury  at  least  be  involved  in  the  insinuation  of 
treating  the  memory  of  Mr.  Wesley  with  “  cold  neglect,  if  not  con¬ 
tempt?” 

Even  in  the  British  Minutes,  the  notice  of  Mr.  Wesley’s  death  was 
extremely  short :  For  the  conference  declared  that  they  found  them¬ 
selves  “  utterly  inadequate  to  express  their  ideas  and  feelings  on  that 
awful  and  affecting  event.” 

That  Mr.  Wesley  before  his  death,  became  satisfied  of  the  continued 
affection  and  attachment  of  the  American  Methodists,  appears  from 
his  correspondence. 

In  a  letter  to  the  Rev.  Ezekiel  Cooper,  written  only  twenty-nine 
days  before  his  death,  after  mentioning  his  growing  infirmities,  he 
says,  Probably  I  should  not  be  able  to  do  so  much,  did  not  many  of 
you  assist  me  by  your  prayers.  See  that  you  never  give  place  to  one 
thought  of  separating  from  your  brethren  in  Europe.  Lose  no  oppor¬ 
tunity  of  declaring  to  all  men  that  the  Methodists  are  one  people  in  all 
the  world,  and  that  it  is  their  full  determination  so  to  continue, 

‘  Though  mountains  rise,  and  oceans  roll 
To  sever  us  in  vain.’  ” 

This  proves  that  he  did  not  then  consider  us  as  separated  from  him¬ 
self,  or  from  our  European  brethren. 

The  same  sentiment  has  been  since  officially  avowed  both  by  the 
British  and  American  conferences.  The  credentials  furnished  by  our 
brethren  in  Europe,  either  to  their  ministers  or  members,  are  recog¬ 
nised  and  honoured  by  us  here,  as  entitling  them  to  every  privilege  of 
our  church.  The  credentials  which  we  furnish  are  also  acknowledged 
by  them.  And  of  late  years  the  two  connexions  have  mutually  ex- 

When  the  great  Fletcher  died,  the  account  of  him  in  the  English  Minutes  was 
contained  in  one  line  and  a  quarter.  That  line  and  a  quarter y  ho^vever,  from  the  pen 
of  Mr.  Wesley,  expressed,  we  confes.'^,  as  much  as  some  of  oiu  modern  pages. 


79 


changed  delegates,  as  the  representatives  of  each  other,  in  our  respect 
tive  conferences.  Of  this  state  of  unity  and  affection  every  friend  ot 
this  great  work  will  cordially  say — may  it  be  perpetual.* 


Section  XVI. — Mr.  M’' Caine's  Arithmetical  Calculations. 

Mr.  M^Caine  states,  page  65,  that  the  “  appeal”  proposed  by  Mr. 
O’Kelly,  in  the  conference  of  1792,  “  was  the  origin  and  cause  of  a 
secession  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  of  such  great  extent, 
that  in  less  than  five  years  the  Minutes  of  Conference  exhibit  a  de¬ 
crease  of  20,000  members.” 

Now  how  does  he  .make  this  out  1  The  conference  at  which  Mr. 
O’Kelly  proposed  his  appeal,  was  in  November  1792.  The  first  return 
of  numbers  thereafter  was  in  1793.  The  total  number  of  members, 
white  and  coloured,  on  the  face  of  the  Minutes,  then  was  67,643. 
In  1798,  five  years  afterwards,  the  total  number  was  60,169  ;  making 
a  decrease  of  only  7,474.  Or,  if  we  take  it  in  1797,  four  years  fron^ 
1793,  the  total  number  then  was  58,663;  making  a  decrease  of  8,980. 
If  we  make  the  calculations  from  1792,  the  decrease,  according  to  the 
Minutes,  in  1796  was  9,316 ;  and  in  1797,  it  was  7,317. 

But  did  not  Mr.  M‘Caine,  in  order  to  show  so  large  a  decrease,  go 
back  to  1791  1  If  he  did,  why  did  he  do  so  1  In  1792  the  aggregate 
numbers  on  the  face  of  the  Minutes  was  65,980 ;  and  it  was  subse¬ 
quently  to  that  return  that  the  General  Conference  of  1792,  at  which 
Mr.  O’Kelly  proposed  his  appeal,  was  held.  Of  course  the  numbers 
as  returned  for  1791,  could  not  justly  be  made  the  starting  place  for 
this  calculation.  Besides  from  1791  to  1792  there  was,  in  reality,  an 
increase  of  more  than  2,000  members ;  which  further  shows  the  impro¬ 
priety  of  beginning  the  calculation  of  a  decrease  from  1791.  It  hap¬ 
pens,  however,  that  in  1791  the  face  of  the  Minutes  exhibits  so  very 
large  an  aggregate,  that  it  suited  Mr.  M^Caine’s  purpose  excellently 
well  to  begin  his  calculation  from  that  date.  But  in  that  aggregate., 
as  exhibited  by  the  Minutes,  did  Mr.  M‘Caine  discover  no  mistake 
If  he  did  not,  his  examination  was  extremely  superficial.  If  he  did. 
it  was  a  great  want  of  candour,  and  great  injustice  to  his  readers,  not 
to  state  it.  On  either  ground  we  submit  whether  this  specimen  affords 

+  On  the  proceedings  of  the  conference  of  1787,  Dr.  Coke  in  his  Journal  of  that 
date  remarks, — 

“Never  surely  was  more  external  peace  and  liberty  enjoyed  by  the  church  of 
God,  or  any  part  of  it,  since  the  fall  of  man,  than  we  enjoy  in  America :  and  every 
thing  seems  to  be  falling  before  the  power  of  the  word.  What  then  remained  for 
the  infernal  serpent,  but  to  sow  the  seeds  of  schism  and  division  among  ourselves. 
But,  glory  be  to  God,  yea,  glory  for  ever  be  ascribed  to  his  sacred  name,  the  devil 
was  completely  defeated.  Our  painful  contests,  I  trust,  have  produced  the  most 
indissoluble  union  between  my  brethren  and  me.  We  thoroughly  perceived  the 
mutual  purity  of  each  other’s  intentions  in  respect  to  the  points  in  dispute.  We 
mutually  yielded,  and  mutually  submitted  ;  and  the  silken  cords  of  love  and  affec-^ 
lion  were  tied  to  the  horns  of  the  altar  for  ever  and  ever.” 

We  shall  be  most  truly  rejoiced  to  find  that  as  much  purity  of  intention,  and 
sincerity  of  affection,  and  of  “  the  Musdom  that  is  from  above,”  exist  among  ^is 
the  present  day,  as  actuated  the  hearts  of  our  excellent  “fathers.” 


80 


•us  any  very  great  encouragement  to  rely  implicitly  on  Mr.  M‘Caine‘s 
dilio-ent  investigation,  and  accurate  report  of  documents  1  Whoever 
wilf  examine  the  Minutes  of  1791  \vill  find  that  there  is  an  error  in  the 
aggregate  of  the  numbers  stated  for  that  year,  of  between  ticelve  and 
thirteen  thousand  too  many.  The  whole  number,  of  both  whites  and 
coloured,  is  first  given  at  the  foot  of  the  column  headed  “  Whites — 
and  then  the  number  of  the  coloured  is  given  besides,  which  makes  an 
error  equal  to  the  whole  number  of  the  coloured  members,  which  must 
be  deducted  from  the  total  aggregate  of  the  two  columns,  to  ascertain 
the  true  aggregate. 

In  this  calculation  Mr.  M'Caine  is  the  more  inexcusable,  as  he  had 
before  him  Mr.  Lee’s  history,  in  which  the  increase  and  decrease  are 
regularly  stated  from  year  to  year.  This  might  have  led  any  careful 
investigator  to  an  easy  discovery  of  the  error  in  the  Minutes.  In  1794 
the  first  decrease  took  place  that  had  occurred  for  fourteen  years.  The 
largest  decrease  was  in  1795.  In  1796  there  was  still  a  decrease. 
But  in  1797  there  was  again  an  increase,  nearly  2,000  having  been 
added  to  the  numbers. 

In  the  simple  addition  and  subtraction  of  figures,  we  should  have 
supposed  that  Mr.  M‘Caine  would  have  been  peculiarly  accurate. 
And  if  he  has  so  palpably  erred  in  a  case  so  plain,  and  so  perfectly 
susceptible  of  investigation  and  correction,  it  can  be  no  want  of  charity 
to  believe  that  he  may  have  equally  erred  in  matters  much  more  diffi¬ 
cult  and  intricate,  in  which  he  has  bewildered  himself  in  the  mazes  of 

mystery,”  where  the  certain  science  of  mathematics  could  afford 
no  aid. 

But  we  have  a  few  other  cases  of  arithmetical  logic  to  propose,  in 
bar  of  Mr.  M‘Caine’s.  If  the  “  decrease”  stated  by  Mr.  M‘Caine, 
and  the  “  secessions  since  that  period  in  different  parts  of  the  United 
States,”  be  a  fair  argument  against  our  Episcopal  form  of  church 
government,”  are  the  increase  and  the  accessions  since,  no  argument 
in  its  favour  1  We  put  then  the  following  cases  for  Mr.  M‘Caine’s  cal¬ 
culation. 

In  the  year  1784,  when  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  first 
organized,  the  number  of  members,  in  our  societies  was  14,988.  In 
forty-three  years,  under  our  Episcopal  form  of  church  government,  the 
increase  has  been  367,009  ; — the  total  number  of  members  now  being 
381,997. 

In  less  than  five  years,  at  one  period,  Mr.  M'Caine  says  there  was 
a  decrease  of  20,000  members  ;  though  the  true  decrease,  during  that 
period,  was  not  half  that  number.  In  one  year,  (the  last,)  we  have 
had  an  2wcre«se  of  21,197. 

The  secession  which  caused  the  decrease  which  Mr.  M‘Caine 
names,  soon  came  to  nought ;  and  scarcely  a  wreck,  or  a  vestige  of  it 
now  remains;  whilst  Episcopal  Methodism,  from  which  that  secession 
drew  off,  has  been  graciously  and  divinely  prospered,  to  an  extent  even 
beyond  the  anticipations  of  its  most  sanguine  and  devoted  friends.  Now 
the  answer  required  is,  taking  all  these  cases  together,  what  is  the  sum 
of  the  arithmetical  argument ; — on  which  side  is  the  true  balance ; 
and  fo  what  amount  ? 


Section  XVII. —  The  Address  to  General  Washingtoiu 

Of  all  Mr.  M‘Caine’s  book,  those  parts  which  respect  the  address 
to  General  Washington,  are  the  most  extraordinary.  “  It  is  evident,” 
he  asserts,  page  46,  “  that  the  date  of  this  address  was  altered.”  That 
he  does  not,  in  direct  terms,  charge  Mr.  Asbury  with  the  alteration, 
and  for  the  base  purposes  named,  as  we  have  before  shown,  cannot 
excuse  him.  The  implication  is  too  clear  to  be  mistaken.  If  a  false 
date  were  forged,  and  imposed  on  the  public,  Mr.  Asbury  could  not 
have  been  innocent.  He  could  not  have  been  ignorant  of  the  truth  in 
the  case,  nor  of  his  duty  respecting  it.  We  have  therefore  examined 
this  subject  minutely ;  and  the  result  has  amply  repaid  our  pains.* 

Mr.  Drew  does  not  give  the  address  itself ;  nor  state  expressly  what 
its  precise  date  was.  He  seems,  indeed,  to  have  been  left  in  peculiar 
embarrassment  with  regard  to  dates,  in  consequence  of  the  death  of 
Dr.  Coke  at  sea,  before  he  had  arranged  his  papers  in  chronological 
order,  for  his  anticipated  biographer,  as  he  had  intended.  This  is 
intimated  in  Mr.  Drew’s  dedication.  Admitting,  however,  from  the 
eourse  of  his  narrative,  that  it  was  his  impression  that  the  address  was 
presented  in  1785,  this  mistake  can  be  much  more  readily  excused 
in  Mr.  Drew  than  in  Mr.  M‘Caine.  Mr.  Drew  was  a  foreigner,  writ¬ 
ing  in  a  foreign  country.  Mr.  M‘.Caine  was  here  on  the  spot,  writing 
in  reference  to  prominent  and  well  known  events  in  our  history,  and 
where  the  most  ample  and  accurate  sources  of  information  were  per¬ 
fectly  open  to  him.  The  two  dates,  1785  and  1789,  were  both  before 
him.  Both  were  subjected  to  his  deliberate  investigation.  He  chose 
that  of  1785 ;  and  went  so  far  as  to  charge  that  of  1789  with  being  an 
“  altered”  date,  and  consequently  forged.  Nothing  could  be  more 
deliberate,  and  at  the  same  time  more  grossly  erroneous.  Any  former 
publisher  might  have  overlooked  an  error  in  the  narrative,  as  a  court 
in  the  ordinary  routine  of  business,  without  investigation  or  argument, 
or  having  the  attention  directed  to  the  points  of  a  case.  But  Mr. 
M‘Caine’s  error  is  that  of  a  court  solemnly  deliberating,  hearing  the 
arguments  of  counsel,  taking  time  to  advise,  and  then  pronouncing 
a  most  glaringly  unfounded  and  ir^jirious  decision,  against  all  evidence 
and  reason,  and  all  justice  and  truthi 

*  Mr.  M‘Caine  asserts  also,  pp.  37,  and  38,  that  the  Minutes  of  Conference  “  were 
alterecP^ — “to  make  them  quadrate  with  subsequent  proceedings.”  In  proof  of  this, 
and  showing  the  application  to  Mr.  Asbury,  he  refers  to  Lee’s  History.  Now  Mr. 
Lee  says,  “  In  the  course  of  this  year”  [1787J  “  Mr.  Asbury  reprinted  the  General 
Minutes,  but  in  a  differ  nit  form  from  what  they  were  before,”  p.  127.  The  Mi¬ 
nutes  had  been  printed  before  in  one  general  body  of  consecutive  questions  and 
answers.  Mr.  Asbury  “  methodized  and  arranged  them  under  proper  heads.”  So 
also  Mr.  Lee  says  in  another  place,  p.  68,  “  The  form  of  the  annual  Minutes  wa^ 
changed  this  year”  [1779]  “in  a  few  points  ;  and  the  first  question  stands  thus, 
*  Who  are  admitted  on  trial?’ — The  first  question  used  to  be,  ‘Who  are  admitted 
into  connexion?’”  It  is  evident  therefore  that  Mr.  Lee  had  reference  simply  to  the 
form  in  which  the  Minutes  were  methodized  and  printed.  And  has  not  their  form 
been  repeatedly  altered  since  ?  Has  it  not  been  altered,  and  as  some  think,  im¬ 
proved,  several  times  within  the  last  few  years  ?  If  this  be  deemed  any  crime,  those 
considered  guilty  would  be  much  obliged  if  the  accusation  maybe  made  in  their  life 
tinre,  that  they  may  have  an  opportunity  to  answer  for  themselves. 


82 


3Ir.  M^Caine  repeatedly  states  that  the  address  was  made  to  Gene¬ 
ral  Washington,  “  President  of  the  American  Congress.”  He  does 
this  not  only  when  quoting  Mr.  Drew,  but  when  he  has  no  reference 
to  Mr.  Drew.  See  particularly  page  62.  Now  did  he  not  know,  or 
ought  he  not  to  have  known,  that  General  Washington  never  was  pre¬ 
sident  of  the  American  congress  1  and  that  in  !  785  he  was  in  no  offi¬ 
cial  situation  whatever,  but  a  mere  private  citizen,  attending  to  his 
farms.  In  fact  Washington  was  a  private  citizen  during  the  whole 
period  from  the  resignation  of  his  command  of  the  American  armies 
in  1783,  till  his  election  to  the  presidency  in  1789 ;  except  only  during 
the  few  months  in  which  he  was  a  member  and  president  of  the  con¬ 
vention,  for  the  formation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  in 

1787.  These  facts  and  dates  are  contained  in  our  common  school 
hooks. 

Mr.  M'Caine,  however,  did  kpow  that  Washington  was  not  presi¬ 
dent  of  the  United  States  till  after  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  in 

1788.  This  he  states,  p.  46.  Why  then,  in  the  name  of  consistency, 
did  he  still  insist  that  the  true  date  of  the  address  was  in  1785  ?  Do  not 
both  the  address  and  the  answer  contam  perfect  internal  evidence  that 
their  proper  date  must  have  been  after  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution, 
and  the  election  of  General  Washington  to  the  presidency.  Unless  we 
admit  this,  we  must  allege  a  forgery  not  only  in  the  date,  but  in  the 
body  and  matter  both  of  the  address  and  answer.  The  address  com¬ 
mences  thus : 

“  To  the  President  of  the  United  States.^^  It  then  proceeds  to  ex¬ 
press  the  congratulations  of  the  bishops  on  the  general’s  “appointment 
to  the  presidentship  of  these  states.'"  And,  in  the  ensuing  paragraph, 
their  most  grateful  satisfaction  at  his  course  respecting  “  the  most 
excellent  Constitution  of  these  states.” 

The  president,  in  his  reply,  returns  his  thanks,  for  their  demonstra¬ 
tions  of  atfection,  and  expressions  of  joy,  “  on  his  late  appointment.” 
Now  can  any  one  tell  what  “  late  appointment”  General  Washington 
Iiad  received  in  1785  1  or  how  any  sense  can  be  made  out  of  this 
whole  business,  if  its  date  be  fixed  at  any  time  anterior  to  1789? 

But  we  will  not  detain  the  reader  longer  with  reasoning  on  the 
subject,  though  our  reasoning  aldoe  would  be  conclusive.  We  will 
present  him  with  the  evidence  of  documents  which  shall  put  this 
matter  to  rest.  The  following  is  an 

Extract  of  a  letter  from  the  Rev.  Thomas  Morrell,  to  the  Rev.  Eze¬ 
kiel  Cooper,  dated  “  Elizabethtown,  (N.  J.)  Aug.  26,  1827.” 

“With  regard  to  the  information  you  request  concerning  the  address 
to  General  Washington,  I  can  furnish  you  with  every  material  cir¬ 
cumstance  respecting  it,  having  acted  as  a  sub-agent  in  the  transac¬ 
tion,  and  having  a  distinct  recollection  of  the  whole  business.  The 
history  of  it,  is.  That  Mr.  Asbury,  in  the  New-York  conference  in 

1789.  offered  for  the  consideration  of  the  conference  the  following 
proposal : — Whether  it  would  not  be  proper  for  us  as  a  church,  to  pre¬ 
sent  a  congratulatory  address  to  General  Washington,  who  had  been 
lately  inaugurated  president  of  the  United  States,  in  which  should  be 
embodied  our  approbation  of  the  Constitution,  and  professing  oiu- 


allegiance  to  the  government.  The  conference  unanimously  approved, 
and  warmly  recommended  the  measure ;  and  appointed  the  twcr 
bishops,  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury,  to  draw  up  the  address.  It  was 
finished  that  day,  and  read  to  the  conference,  who  evinced  great  satis¬ 
faction  in  its  recital.  Brother  Dickins  and  myself  were  delegated  to 
wait  on  the  president,  with  a  copy  of  the  address,  and  request  him  to 
appoint  a  day  and  hour,  when  he  would  receive  the  bishops,  one  of 
whom  was  to  read  it  to  him,  and  receive  his  answer.  It  was  concluded 
that  although  Dr.  Coke  was  the  senior  bishop,  yet  not  being  an  Ame¬ 
rican  citizen,  there  would  be  an  impropriety  in  his  presenting  and 
reading  the  address ;  the  duty  devolved  of  course  on  bishop  Asbury. 
Mr.  Dickins  and  myself  waited  on  the  general ;  and  as  I  had  some 
porsonal  acquaintance  with  him,  I  was  desired  to  present  him  with 
the  copyl  and  request  his  reception  of  the  original  by  the  hands  of  the 
bishops.  The  president  appointed  the  fourth  succeeding  day  at  twelve 
o’clock  to  receive  the  bishops.  They  went  at  the  appointed  hour,, 
accompanied  by  brother  Dickins  and  Thomas  Morrell.  Mr.  Asbury, 
with  great  self  possession,  read  the  address  in  an  impressive  manner. 
The  president  read  his  reply  with  fluency  and  animation.  They  inter¬ 
changed  their  respective  addresses,  and  after  sitting  a  few  minutes  we 
departed.  The  address  and  the  answer,  in  a  few  days,  were  inserted 
in  the  public  prints ;  and  some-  of  the  ministers  and  members  of  the 
other  churches  appeared  dissatisfied  that  the  Methodists  should  take 
the  lead.  In  a  few  days  the  other  denominations  successively  followed 
our  example. 

“The  next  week  a  number  of  questions  were  published,  in  the  public 
papers,  concerning  Dr.  Coke’s  signing  the  address.  Who  was  he  ? 
How  came  he  to  be  a  bishop?  \Vho  consecrated  him?  &/C,  accom¬ 
panied  with  severe  strictures  on  the  impropriety  of  a  British  subject 
signing  an  address  approving  of  the  government  of  the  United  States ; 
charging  him  with  duplicity,  and  that  he  was  an  enemy  to  the  inde¬ 
pendence  of  America;  for  they  affirmed  he  had  written  during  our 
revolutionary  w^ar,  an  inflammatory  address  to  the  people  of  Great 
Britain,  condemning,  in  bitter  language,  our  efforts  to  obtain  our 
independence ;  and  other  charges  tending  to  depreciate  the  doctor’s 
character,  and  bringing  him  into  .contempt  with  the  people  of  our 
country.  As  I  did  not  believe  the  assertion  of  the  doctor’s  writing 
the  address  above  mentioned,  I  applied  to  a  gentleman  who  was  in 
England  at  the  time,  to  know  the  truth  of  the  charge ;  he  assured  me 
the  doctor  had  published  no  such  sentiments  in  England  during  the 
revolutionary  war,  or  at  any  other  period,  or  he  should  have  certainly 
had  some  knowledge  of  it.  And  this  was  the  fact,  for  the  doctor  had 
written  no  such  thing.  As  there  was  no  other  person  in  New-York, 
at  that  time,  in  our  connexion,  who  could  meet  these  charges,  and 
satisfactorily  answer  these  queries,  I  undertook  the  task,  and  in  my 
\yeak  manner  endeavoured  to  rebut  the  charges,  and  answer  the  ques¬ 
tions.  A  second  piece  appeared,  and  a  second  answer  was  promptly 
published.  No  more  was  written  on  the  subject  in  New-York.  The 
doctor  afterwards  gave  me  his  thanks  for  defending  his  character. 

“  Such  are  the  material  circumstances  that  occurred  concerning 
the  address  to  General  Washington,  and  his  reply,  which  you  are  at. 


84 

liberty  to  make  use  of  in  any  way  you  think  proper ;  and  if  you  judge 
it  necessary  may  put  my  name  to  it. 

“  Thomas  Morrell.” 

I  certify  that  the  above  is  a  true  extract  of  an  original  letter  of  the 
Rev.  Thomas  Morrell,  addressed  to  me,  bearing  the  above  date,  and 
now  in  my  possession. 

Ezekiel  Cooper. 

Netc^Yorh^  September  7,  1827. 

To  this  we  add  the  following  copy  of  a  letter  from  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Sparks,  of  Boston,  to  whom  the  papers  of  General  Washington  have 
been  entrusted,  for  the  purpose  of  making  such  selections  for  publica¬ 
tion  as  he  shall  deem  proper  ;  in  which  important  work  this  gentleman 
is  now  engaged.  And  for  this  polite  and  prompt  reply  to  our  inquiries, 
we  here  tender  to  Mr.  Sparks  our  nrost  respectful  thanks. 

./  Boston,  September  1,  1827. 

Dear  Sir, — Your  favour  of  the  26th  ultimo  has  been  received, 
and  I  am  happy  to  be  able  to  furnish  you  with  the  information  you 
desire.  The  “  date''  of  the  address  presented  by  bishops  Coke  and 
Asbury  to  General  Washington,  is  May  twenty-ninth,  1789.  It  is 
proper  to  inform  you,  however,  that  1  do  not  find  the  original  paper 
on  the  files,  but  take  the  date  as  it  is  recorded  in  one  oi  the  volumes 
of  “  Addresses.”  It  is  barely  possible  that  there  may  be  a  mistake  in 
the  record,  but  not  at  all  probable. 

“  It  is  not  likely,  that  any  address  from  any  quarter  was  presented 
to  Washington  in  1785.  I  have  never  seen  any  of  that  year.  He  was 
then  a  private  man,  wholly  employed  with  his  farms. 

“  I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully, 

“  Your  obedient  servant, 

Mr.  J.  Emory.  “  Jared  Sparks.” 

To  complete  this  investigation  we  have  examined  the  newspapers 
published  in  this  city,  (New-York,)  in  1789,  of  which  files  are  pre¬ 
served  in  the  New-York  Library .T  The  address  of  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr. 
Asbury  was  published  in  the  Gazette  of  the  United  States,  on  the  3d 
of  June,  1789 ;  and  is  dated  May  29,  of  that  year ;  exactly  corres¬ 
ponding  with  the  date  stated  by  Mr.  Sparks,  from  the  Washington 
records.  The  same  address  may  be  found  in  the  Arminian  Magazine 
for  June  1789,  published  in  Philadelphia  by  John  Dickins.  It  is  there 
dated  May  19,  1789.  This  seems  either  to  have  been  a  typographical 
error  of  19  for  29;  or,  probably,  the  original  draught  of  an  address 
w’as  prepared  about  the  19th, — and  this  date  then  put  to  it  was  inad¬ 
vertently  left  uncorrected  when  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  printer. 
This  difference  of  a  few  days,  however,  cannot  now  be  of  any  possible 
moment,  as  it  is  placed  beyond  all  dispute,  that  the  true  date  of  the 
address,  as  presented  to  Washington,  was  May  29,  1789.* 

*  At  the  British  conference  in  1820,  an  address  was  adopted  on  the  occasion  of 
tlie  death  of  George  III.,  and  the  accession  of  George  IV  to  the  throne  of  Great 
Britain.  The  original  draught  of  that  address  was  prepared  by  Dr.  Adam  Clarke 


The  viriit  of  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  to  General  Washington,  at 
Mount  Vernon,  in  1785,  was  merely  to  solicit  his  influence  in  favour 
of  a  petition  which  they  had  it  in  contemplation  to  present  to  the 
general  assembly  of  Virginia,  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  They  dined 
with  the  general,  and  had  a  personal  interview  on  the  subject,  bur 
made  no  particular  address.  A  circumstantial  account  of  that  visit  , 
and  the  politeness  with  which  the  general  received  them,  may  be  seen 
in  Dr.  Coke’s  Journal  of  May  1785.^ 

Since  writing  the  above  we  have  received  a  letter  from  the  Rev. 
Ezekiel  Cooper  ;  of  which  the  following  is  an  extract : 


‘‘  Trmton,  N.  J.,  Oct.  IG,  1827. 

llev.  John  Emo7'y, 

“  Dear  Sir, — I  have  a  book,  now  lying  before  me,  entitled,  ^  A 
Collection  of  the  Speeches  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  both 
Houses  of  Congress  at  the  opening  of  every  Session,  with  their  An- 
swcrs. — Also.,  the  Addresses  to  the  President,  loith  his  Answers,  from 
the  time  of  his  Election.^  Printed  at  Boston  by  Manning  and  Coring, 
for  Solomon  Cotton,  1796. — In  which  book,  at  pages  133,  134,  is  the 
address  of  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  the  Pre¬ 
sident,  and  his  answer.  The  address  is  dated  New-York,  May  29, 
1789.  This  agrees  with  the  information  you  have  from  Mr.  Jared 
Sparks,  as  to  the  time  the  address  was  presented. 

“  It  is  now  to  be  hoped,  that  neither  the  author  of  the  History  and 
Mystery  of  Methodist  Episcopacy,  nor  his  friends  or  advocates,  will 
be  so  bold,  I  am  almost  ready  to  say  so  presumptuous,  as  to  believe 
the  reproachful  or  slanderous  charge  of  altering  the  date  of  the  said 
address,  to  answer  some  unworthy  and  falsely  supposed  purpose.  For 
in  so  doing,  it  will  implicate  Washington  himself,  who  has  left  it  on 
record  among  his  papers,  that  the  said  address  was  received  by  him 
May  29,  1789.  Also  Mr.  Sparks,  who  is  in  possession  of  Washing¬ 
ton’s  papers,  and  testifies,  in  the  communication  to  you,  that  it  there 
stands  dated  May  29,  1789.  And  also  the  compiler  or  editor  of  the 

previously  to  the  conference.  It  was  read  by  him  and  submitted  to  the  conference 
on  the  first  day  of  the  session,  and  dated  on  that  day,  though  not  finally  acted  on 
till  some  days  after,  nor  presented  till  still  later. 

*  In  the  account  which  Mr.  Drew  gives  of  Dr.  Coke’s  and  Mr.  Asbury’s  address 
to  General  Washington,  he  states  that  “various  addresses”  of  other  denominations 
about  the  same  time  found  their  way  into  the  American  newspapers,  and  across 
the  Atlantic  ;  among  which  none  so  much  attracted  the  attention  of  the  English 
Methodists  as  that  which  bore  the  signature  of  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury. — Life  of 
Dr.  Coke,  pp.  143,  144.  Of  these  other  addresses,  that  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
was  dated  May  26,  1789,  and  presented  June  5  ; — of  the  German  Reformed,  June 
10,  1789 of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  dated  August  7,  and  presented 
August  19,  1789.  These  were  all  published  in  the  Gazette  of  the  United  States 
of  that  year.  That  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  was  also  published  in  the 
New-York  Daily  Gazette.  The  president’s  answer  to  each  of  them  bears  no  date  ; 
except  that  to  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  as  published  in  the  Gazette  of  the 
United  States,  is  dated  August  19.  But  as  published  in  the  New-York  Daily  Ga¬ 
zette  this  also  is  not  dated.  And  we  believe  the  president  did  not  usually  date  his 
ans^ver^  to  addresses,  at  that  period. 


II 


b(V3k  betbre  me,  above  mentioned,  in  which  the  address  and  answer 
are  published,  bearing  the  same  date.  May  29,  1789.  Surely,  every 
©ne  must  be  fully  convinced  and  satisfied  of  the  false  and  unworthy 
charge. 

The  answers  of  Washington  to  the  addresses  are  generally  without 
date  :  scarcely  an  instance  of  date.  Some  of  the  addresses  and  answers 
'  are  both  without  date. 

“  As  to  the  difference  of  the  date  of  bishops  Coke  and  Asbiiry’s 
address,  as  published  in  the  Arminian  Magazine,  May  19,  and  as 
published  in  the  above  mentioned  book,  &.c.  May  29,  it  might  have 
been  a  typographical  error ;  otherwise  the  original  draught  might  have 
been  written  in  Philadelphia,  where  the  conference  sat  the  18th  of 
May — and  the  conference  sat  in  New-York  the  28th.  At  New-York 
they  probably  dated  it  the  29th,  and  brother  Dickins  might  have 
printed  from  the  draught  made  in  Philadelphia,  dated  the  19th.  The 
Magazine  was  published  in  Philadelphia. 

“  Yours, 

‘‘  Ezekiel  Cooper.”* 


Section  XVIII. — ‘‘History  and  mystery'''  of  Mr,  M‘ Caine’’ s 
inconsistency. 

After  all  Mr.  M^Caine’s  denunciations  of  the  name  of  bishop,  and 
of  the  Episcopal  office  among  us,  he  thus  concludes,  pp.  70-72. 

‘‘  Let  the  local  ministers  and  the  laity  be  represented  in  the  legis¬ 
lative  department  of  the  church. — On  the  other  points  which  we  have 
mentioned  above,  we  place,  comparatively,  no  stress.  We  are  not 
tenacious  of  them.  We  are  w'illing,  if  it  should  be  thought  best,  to 
relinquish  any,  or  all  of  them.  But,  representation  from  the  local 
ministry  and  laity,  by  the  help  of  God,  we  will  never  relinquish.” — 
Now  one  of  “  the  other  points”  mentioned  above  was, — “  Let  the  name 
of  bishop,  and  the  Episcopal  office  as  it  now  exists  among  us,  ffie  put 
away  for  ever.”  Yet,  founded  in  falsehood,  in  imposture,  and  in  fraud, 
as  he  represents  these  to  have  been,  and  disgraceful  and  contemptible 
almost  beyond  expression,  he  is,  nevertheless,  “  not  tenacious”  of 
their  being  “put  away,”  provided  the  laity  and  the  local  ministry,  of 
whom  he  is  one,  may  be  admitted  into  a  higher  state  of  participa- 

*  We  take  pleasure  in  adding,  that  having  had  frequent  interviews  with  Mr. 
Cooper,  and  free  conversations  on  the  subjects  of  this  work,  we  believe  we  arc 
warranted  in  saying  that  he  concurs  in  our  views.  To  this  intelligent  and  able  man, 
one  of  the  most  aged  of  our  itinerant  ministry  now  living,  we  here  also  tender  our 
thanks  for  several  interesting  faets  derived  from  the  treasures  of  his  well  stored 
memory  ;  and  also  from  some  private  manuscript  notes  of  his  own.  The  concur¬ 
rence  of  Mr.  Cooper  on  the  topies  here  discussed,  is  the  more  valued,  as  all  who 
are  acquainted  with  him  know  that,  as  no  man  among  us  is  more  capable  of  form¬ 
ing  a  correct  judgment  respecting  them,  or  has  paid  more  minute  and  constant 
attention  to  them,  so  no  one  is  less  disposed  unduly  to  exalt  the  Episcopacy,  or 
^fntlfd  tfe  more  free  and  fmless  to  expose  any  imposition  or  fraud  if  discovered.  , 


V 


S7 


lion  with  this  base  concern  !-ls  Mr.  M'Ca.ne  sincere  ?  Does  he 
rea  IV  mean,  after  all  he  has  said,  that  if  admitted  into  the  General 
Conference  he  would  not  be  “  tenacious”  of  “  doing  away  the  name 
of  birop  and  the  Episcopal  office,  as  it  now  exists  among  us  -or 
dLs  &  this,  lest  by  saying  otherwise  this  juncture”  he  might 
dash  from”  his  lips  the  cup  of  sweets  f 

Bu^  still  more  exitraordinary  “  mystery”  of  inconsistency  remains 
to  be  develoned.  Mr.  M'Caine  states  in  his  preface,  p.  5,  as  one  ot 
L  reSons  for  his  publication,  that  he  thinks  the  “  exposure”  he  has 
made  “  will  tend  much  to  lessen,  if  it  will  not  totally  overcome  he 
opposition  of  travelling  preachers  to  representation.  —  1  hat  is  to  the 
representation  of  the  local  preachers  and  laity  in  the  General  Con- 
fcroncc 

Now  the  reader  will  please  to  observe,  that  for  many  years  past,  a 
large  portion  of  the  travelling,  preachers  had  been  desirous  to  eftect 
some  diminution  of  the  Episcopal  prerogative,  by  vesting  in  the  annual 
conferences  some  voice  in  the  selection  of  the  presiding  elders  This 
Mr.  M‘Caine  knew.  Yet  during  the  very  period  in  which  he  was 
engaged  in  preparing  his  book,  in  order  it  would  seem  to  lessen  it 
not  totally  to  overcome”  Episcopal  opposition,  too,  to  the  repiesenta- 
tion  of  the  local  preachers,  he  made  a  communication,  in  a  way  to 
reach  Episcopal  ears,  that  if  he  might  take  the  liberty  of  expressing 
Ms  mind,  the  probability  would  be  greater  for  the  conhnumice  of  the 
exercise  of  this  prerogative  .  from  a  local  representation,  than 
it.  And  why?  Because,  in  his  opinion,  affection  and  veneration  iox 
Episcopal  men  might,  and  no  doubt  would,  lead  a  Local  representation 
to  support  a  measure  which  they  had  no  immediate  and  direct  inte¬ 
rest  in  opposing  !-Thus,  by  -  exposure”  of  Episcopacy  andjjf  Epis¬ 
copal  men,  Mr.  M‘Caine  exerts  himself,  on  one  side,  (  candidly  t  , 
he  assures  us,)  to  lessen  if  not  totally  to  overcome  the  opposition  ot 
travelling  preachers  to  the  representation  of  local  preachers.  And^ , 
at  the  same  time,  on  the  other  side,  he  endeavours  to 
copal  men  that  the  representation  of  local  preachers  will  tend  to  con. 
firm  and  to  perpetuate  their  prerogative ;  and  this  too,  not  on  the 
grouiid  of  reason  or  argument,  but  from  the  affection  veneratimot 
the  local  preachers  for  Episcopal  men.  So  that  in  the  opinion  of  Mr 
M'Caine,  this  was  the  return  which  those  said  j 

would  “  no  doubt,”  receive  from  those  same  local  brethien  who 
been  labouring  to  induce  them  to  assist  the  sa^  'ocal 
into  General  Conference.  On  alVthis  we  shall  eader  to 

make  his  own  comments.  The  facts,  we  apprehend,  will  not  be 

•This  nart  of  Mr.  M’Caine’s  work  has  been  noticed  by  another  writer,  in  the 
foUoltg^J™*  of  strong  rebuke.  “We  must  say,  that  ^ 

has  written  in  the  previous  part  of  his  book,  and  would  be  satisfied  with^iws.^n^ 
offers  a  base  and  disgraceful  compromise.  If  we  belie  e  ,  f„,..pi,yod  and  has 
government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  oiigina  ^_i,p  anv'compro- 
been  perpetuated  by  fraud  and  forgery,  we  would  dis  ai  which  did 

mise  at  all  with  the  authors  of  it :  we  would  be  satisfied  w>‘h  ^thing  wtach  diu 
not  go  to  overthrow  the  whole  establishment,  and  wipe  f  E  Bondls 

of  all  men.  this  foul  blot  on  the  character  of  Methodism.  Di.  T.  1..  Uond 


.A-ppeil 


aenied.  But  if  Mr.  M'Cairie’s  opinion  be  correct,  liow  it  is  caicuiated 
to  “  lessen,  if  not  totally  to  overcome”  opposition  to  the  representation 
of  local  preachers,  on  the  part  of  those  travelling  preachers  at  least 
who  have  been  desirous  of  effecting  some  diminution  of  this  Episcopal 
prerogative,  is  to  us,  we  confess,  a  “  mystery.” 


Section  XIX. —  l/mon  Society  cf  Baltimore; — Conclusion, 

Mr.  M'Caine,  states,  p.  4,  that  “  the  result  of  his  investigation  was 
read  before  the  Union  Society  of  reformers  in  Baltimore,  and  the 
writer  was  requested  to  print  it  for  the  information  of  his  brethren.” 
Of  what  number,  or  persons,  the  Union  Society  of  Baltimore  consists 
we  are  not  informed.  Some  of  the  individuals  who  compose  it,  we 
know.  And  we  are  unwilling  to  believe  that  they  could  have  delibe¬ 
rately  and  understandingly,  sanctioned  *  and ’'  recommended  such  a 
publication.  Our  hope,  therefore,  is,  either  that  the  members  of  that 
society  were  not  all  present  when  Mr.  M‘Caine’s  manuscript  was  read ; 
— or  tlicy  did  not  hear  the  whole  of  it ; — or  the^^  did  not  all  approve  of  it ; 
— or  they  had  not  a  fair  opportunity  of  weighing  and  examining  it,  and 
haie  thought  differently  of  it  since  it  was  printed  ";  but  if  disappointed 
m  all  these  hopes,  then  we  persuade  ourselves-  that  they  will  at  least 
give  this  defence  a  fair  and  candid  consideration ;  and  if  convinced 
that  Mr.  M’Caine  has  led  them  into  error,  that  they  will  frankly  and 
honourably  declare  it. 

Have  the  Union  Society  of  Baltimore  forgotten  that  the  femains  of 
Bishop  Asbury  were  disinterred,  arid ‘removed  from  Virginia,  and 
deposited  in  their  city,  as  a  place  peculiarly  dear  to  him  ?  Have  they 
forgotten  the  solemn  rites  with  which,  by  the  joint  act  of  the  General 
Conference,  and  of  the  Baltimore  Society,  they  were  placed  under  the 
pulpit  of  the  Eutaw  church,  as  in  a  sacred  and  chosen  asylum,  where 
his  ashes  might  rest  in  honoured  peace,  under  their  affectionate  and 
generous  protection  ?  With  what  feelings  then  could  such  of  our 
brethren  as  may  have  sanctioned  the  publication  of  Mr.  M‘Caine’s 
book,  stand  in  that  very  pulpit,  over  those  ashes,  to  preach  to  those 
whom  they  know  to  hold  the  name  of  that  venerable  man  in  so  much 
filial  love  and  reverence  ?  Can  it  be  supposed  that  their  hearers  could 
avoid,  the  association  of  the  hook^  the  preacher,  and  the  injured  fa¬ 
ther  And  could  such  an  association  be  either  agreeable  or  profit¬ 
able  ?  Ought  not  the  ashes  of  that  father  first  to  be  taken  up  and 
given  to  the  winds;  or  be  sent  to  the  Potters  field,  where  strangers 
hem  peace?  Or  at  least  be  returned  to.their  resting  place  in  Virginia, 
whence  they  were  solicited  ?  And  will  not  a  voice  from  his  tomb  be 
otherwise  continually  reproaching  the  Union  Society  of  Baltimore ;  or 
their  proceeding  be  a  standing  reproach  to  him  ?* 


^  prepared  for  the  press,  we  have  seen  a  publication  in 

winch  It  IS  stated  that  no  vote  of  recommendation  to  publish  Mr.  M’Caine’s  work 
had  passed  the  Union  Society.  Tliis  is  stated  on  the  authority  of  the  president 
and  ser-retarv :  and  it  is  added  that  Mr.  M‘Caine  also  “declared  that  he  had  u- 


VVe  have  now  performed,  in  some  respects,  a  painful,  in  others  a 
pleasurable  task.  The  investigations  to  which  it  has  led  us,  have 
occupied  our  close  and  prayerful  attention.  If  the  result  be  as  satis¬ 
factory  to  others,  as  it  has  been  to  our  own  mind,  the  Methodist  reader 
will  continue  to  bless  God  that  his  name  has  been  associated  with 
those  of  Wesley,  of  Coke,  and  of  Asbury ;  and  with  the  names  of 
those  excellent  fathers,”  through  whose  labours,  and  the  “  institu¬ 
tions  received  from”  them,  with  the  divine  blessing,  the  foundations 
were  laid  of  that  great  work  of  God  which  has  been  spread  over  these 
lands.  And  with  regard  to  our  own  Asbury  particularly,  he  will  con¬ 
fidently  and  triumphantly  conclude,  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Snethen 
on  the  occasion  of  his  death, — ‘‘  Whatever  of  scandal  may  hereafter 
attach  to  us,  neither  we,  nor  our  children,  shall  have  to  bear  the 
reproach  of  crimes  in  our  human  leader.  Few  among  those  who  have 
followed  in  the  same  tr^ick,  haye  excelled  him,  in  any  of  the  qualities 
which  constitute  a  good  mau  \-r-in  the  union  of  them  all  none  have 

SURPASSED  HIM.” 

allusion  to  a  vote  of  the  Union  S6ciet3\”  We  will  not  charge  Mr.  M^Caine  with 
a  design  to  mislead  his  readers,  o<.  *t.o  give  currency  to  his  book,  by  representing 
it  as  sanctioned  by  the  Union'Society  of  Baltimore.  Nor  will  we  impute  to  the 
officers  of  that  society  the'littlepOss  of  descending  to  the  quibble  that  no  such 
“  vote”  passed  the  society,  if  the  \yQrk  had  been  in  any  manner  sanctioned  by  that 
body.  But  that  such  of  Mr,  ‘M^Caine’s  readers  as  were  not  in  the  secret,  have 
understood  him  to  allude  -to  the  Union  Society  before  whom  the  result  of  his 
investigations  was  read,  as  requesting  him  to  print  it,  there  can  be  no  doubt. — 
Indeed  we  do  not  see  how  any  other  rational  construction  can  be  put  on  the  sen¬ 
tence  ; — “  The  result  of  his  .investigation  was  read  before  the  Union  Society  of 
reformers  in  Baltimore ;  and  the  writer  was  requested  to  print  it  for  the  informa¬ 
tion  of  his  brethren.”  p,  4,  If,  in  iliis,  however,  we  have  been  mistaken,  and 
there  be  no  “  mystery”  in  this  fhiqg,  then  our  remarks  are  to  be  applied  not  to 
the  society  as  such,  but  to  the  individuals  concerned. 


APPENDIX 


No.  I. — Respecting  Dr.  Coke's  Letter  to  Bishop  White. 


Having  received  an  extract  from  Dr.  Coke’s  letter  to  the  Re\'.  Ezekiel  Cooper, 
on  this  subject,  but  too  late  for  insertion  m  the  body  of  this  work,  we  introduce 


Foi^two  years  or  more,  previously  to  1792,  Mr.  O’Kelly  had  excited  much  disaf¬ 
fection  in  Virginia :  particularly  in  the  important  and  extensive  district  over  which 


he  then  presided.  It  was,  indeed,  a  matter  of  controversy  at  that  period,  whether 
he,  and  the  preachers  who  adhert^d  to  him,  were  in  “  the  union,”  as  he  expressed 
it ;  altliough  his  name  w'as  regularly  continued  on  the  Minutes  as  a  presiding  elder, 
till  1792,  when  he  withdrew'.  In  1792  our  General  Conferences  were  first  esta¬ 
blished  Previously  to  that  time  we  had  none,  except  that  of  1784.  Dr.  Coke  was 
of  opinion  that  some  general  and  permanent  bond  of  union,  was  Imperiously 
needed.  Mr.  Asbury  was  of  the  same  opinion.  The  “  council”  was  proposed  as 
an  expedient ;  but  not  being  found  to  answer  t,he  purpose,  it  w’as  discontinued, 
after  only  two  sessions,  in  1789,  and  1790.  \  In  that  measure  Dr.  Coke  did  not 
concur.  The  proceedings  of  Mr.  O’Keily  produce))  great  agitation.  Special  pains 
were  taken  to  enlist  Dr.  Coke  in  his  view's,  and*  to  produce  disaffection  between 
him  and  bishop  Asbury.  Dr.  Coke  becarne  alarmed  for  the  safety  of  the  con¬ 
nexion  ;  and  in  that  state  of  mind,  without-'eonsultibg  his  colleague,  resolved  to 
ascertain  whether  a  union  could  be  effected  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
on  such  terms’ as  he  conceived  w'ould  secure  the  integrity  and  the  rights  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  He  w'as  also  under  an  impression,  as  before  stated, 
that  such  a  junction  w'ould  greatly  enlarge  .our  field  of  action ;  and  that  myriads 
would  attend  our  ministry  in  consequence  of  it,  who  were  at  that  time  much  preju¬ 
diced  against  us.  All  these  things,  “  unitedly  considered,”  led  him  to  write  to  bishop 
White  in  1791,  and  to  meet  him  and  Dr.  Magaw  in  Philadelphia.  This  he  states  in  his 
letter  to  Mr.  Cooper.  An  extract  of  that  letter  is  now'  before  us.  It  is  dated  “  Near 
Leeds,  Yorkshire,  Jan.  29,  1808  and  is  in  the  form  of  an  address  to  the  General 
Conference.  The  correctness  of  the  extract  is  certified  by  Mr.  Cooper,  as  taken  by 
himself  from  the  original,  in  Dr.  Coke’s  hand  w'riting.  In  this  letter  after  adverting 
to  the  circumstances  above  named,  and  to  the  labour  and  fatigue  with  w’hich,  a  short 
time  before  he  wrote  to  bishop  White,  he  had  prevailed  on  James  O’Kelly,  and  the 
preachers  who  adhered  to  him,  to  submit  to  the  decision  of  a  General  Conference, 
Dr.  Coke  replies  to  the  following  question  :  “If  he  did  not  believe  the  Episcopal 
ordination  of  Mr.  Asbury  valid,  why  he  had  ordained  him  ?”  To  this  he  says,  “  I 

answer,  .  ,  ,  •  r  , 

“  1.  I  never,  since  I  could  reason  on  those  things,  considered  the  doctrine  of  the 
uninterrupted  apostolic  succe  sion  of  bishops,  as  at  all  valid,  or  true. 

“2.  I  am  of  our  late  venerable  fatlmr,  Mr.  W esley’s  opinion,  that  the  order  of 
bishops  and  presbyters  is  one  and  the  same. 

“3.  I  believe  that  the  Episcopal  form  of  church  government  is  the  best  in  the 
world,  when  the  Episcopal  power  is  under  due  regulations  and  responsibility. 

“4.  I  believe  that  it  is  well  to  follow  the  example  of  the  primitive  church  as  ex¬ 
emplified  in  the  word  of  God,  by  setting  apart  persons  for  great  ministerial  pur¬ 
poses  by  the  iiiiposition  of  hands  ;  but  especially  those  who  are  appointed  for 
offices  of  the  first  rank  in  the  church. 

“From  all  I  have  advanced,  you  may  easily  perceive,  my  dear  brethren,  that  I 
do  not  consider  the  imposition  of  hands  on  the  one  hand,  as  essentially  necessary 
for  any  office  in  the  church  ;  nor  do  I,  on  the  other  hand,  think  that  the  repetition 
of  the  imposition  of  hands  for  the  same  offi<*e,  when  important  circumstances  re¬ 
quire  it,  is  at  all  improper. 


91 


‘‘  If  it  be  granted  that  my  plan  of  union  with  the  old  Episcopal  Clmrch  was 
desirable,  {which  now,  I  think,  teas  not  so,  though  I  most  sincerely  believed  it  to  be  so 
at  that  time)  then,  if  the  plan  could  not  have  been  accomplished  without  a  repeti¬ 
tion  of  the  imposition  of  hands  for  the  same  office,  I  did  believe,  and  do  now 
believe,  and  have  no  doubt,  that  the  repetition  of  the  imposition  of  hands  would 
have  been  perfectly  justifiable  for  the  enlargement  of  the  field  of  action,  &c,  and 
would  not  by  any  means  have  invalidated  the  former  consecration  or  impositiori 


of  hands.  .  ^  , 

“  Therefore  1  have  no  doubt  but  my  consecration  of  bishop  Asbury  was  perfectly 
valid,  and  would  have  been  so  even  if  he  had  been  reconsecrated. 

“I  neverdid  apply  to  the  General  Convention  or  any  other  convention  for  re¬ 
consecration.  I  never  intended  that  either  bishop  Asbury  or  myself  should  give  up 
our  Episcopal  office,  if  the  junction  were  to  take  place  :  but  I  should  have  had  no 
scruple  then,  nor  should  I  now,  if  the  junction  were  desirable,  to  have  submitted  to, 
or  to  submit  to,  a  reimposition  of  hands,  in  order  to  accomplish  a  great  object : 
but  I  do  say  again,  I  do  not  now  believe  such  a  junction  desirable. 

“  I  have  thus  simply  and  candidly,  though  in  few  words,  told  you  my  whole 
mind  on  this  subject.  1  do  not  consider  my  solemn  engagements  to  you  invalid¬ 
ated  by  any  thing  1  have  done,  or  you  have  done.  But  I  charge  you  by  the  glory 
of  God,  and  by  every  tie  of  love,  gratitude  and  candour,  that  you  take  no  step 
which  may  injure  my  character.  And  now  I  conclude  with  assuring  you,  that  I 
greatly  love  and  esteem  you  ;  that  it  is  a  delight  to  me  to  pray  for  your  prosperity ; 
and  that  I  am,  with  unfeigned  esteem,  your  very  affectionate  brother  and  faithful 
friend, 

“  T.  Coke.” 


We  hope,  after  this,  to  hear  no  more  of  Dr.  Coke’s  “  doubts"  of  the  validity  of 
his  Episcopal  ordination,  or  of  that  of  bishop  Asbury  ;  unless  our  modern  race  of 
writers  can  persuade  us  that  they  are  better  acquainted  with  the  mind  of  Dr.  Coke 
than  he  was  himself.  The  aJ^sertipn  is  as  unfounded  as  that  “  the  introduction  of 
Episcopacy  among  the  Methodists  in  the  United  States  was  expressly  disapproved 
and  forbidden  by  Mr.  Wesley;”  or.  that  “the  formation  of  the  present  plan  of 
government  among  us  was  the  undivuiged-.project  of  a  few,  who  meeting  in  secret 
conclave,  excluded  the  junior  members  even  of  their  own  body or  that  the 
bishops  of  the  IVIethodist  Episcopal  Church  have  ever  founded  their  Episcopacy  on 
the  ground  of  “  uninterrupted  succession  from  the  apostles,”  or  that  the  rejection 
of  that  doctrine  has  ever  been  “  struck  out”  of  our  discipline.  Such  assertions 
only  serve  to  show  how  superficially  those  who  make  them  have  examined  the 
subject ;  or  how  servilely  they  copy  others.  We  should  regret  that  the  repetition  of 
them  should  oblige  us  to  give  back  the  “  modest”  imputation  either  of  “  ignorance, 
or  want  of  candour.” 


No.  II. — J1  Communication  from  the  Rev.  Jf.  Bangs. 

My  Dear  Brother,  ^  . 

Having  had  the  pleasure  of  hearing  you  read  your  manuscript  m  the  Delence 
of  our  Fathers,”  &c,  against  the  attacks  of  the  Rev.  Alexander  M’Caine,  I  take  this 
opportunity  of  expressing  to  you  my  views  of  the  orders  of  our  ministry.  This  I 
can  do  the  more  readily  because  1  have  already  published  them  in  my  little  book 
on' “  Methodist  Episcopacy,”  and  it  will  also  give  me  an  opportunity  of  correcting 
some  mistaken  opinions  which  have  been  circulated,  not  much  to  the  credit  of  the 
authors  of  them,  respecting  my  views  on  this  subject.  Indeed  I  have  been  repre¬ 
sented  as  holding  that  a  third  order  in  the  church  is  jure  divino,  or  of  divine  right, 
without  which,  of  course,  there  can  be  no  valid  ordinances.  That  this  is  an  entire 
misrepresentation  of  my  views,  will  appear  manifest  to  every  impartial  mind,  from 
the  following  quotations  from  my  book  on  the  subject  of  our  Episcopacy. 

In  chapter  ii,  which  treats  of  “Elders  and  ol  their  duty,”  p.  35,  is  the  following 
sentence  : — “  I  shall  undertake  to  prove,  that  the  body  of  elders  in  their  collective 
capacity,  had  the  right  of  consecrating  ministers,  and  of  establishing  ordinances  for 
the  government  of  the  church.”  It  will  be  perceived  that  this  sentence  contains 
the  main  proposition  which  I  set  myself  to  prove,  and  to  sustain  throughout  that 
chapter ;  and  among  other  proofs  cited  in  support  of  this  doctrine,  is  the  following 


92 


nom  StiUitfeHeet:-“  Before  Hie  jurisd.cUon  of  presbyters  was  res  rained  by 
i  iSoi  coS.  the  presbyters  enjoyed  the  same  liberty  that  the  presbyters  among 
The  JenTdid,  of  orL.iing  other  presbyters,  by  that  power  they  were  mves  ed  m, 
or  witrat  their  own  ordination.”  p.  40.  And  the  whole  reasoning  in  this  chapter 
fs  d^sianS  to  show  that  consecration  by  presbyters  is  scriptural,  with  a  view  to 
vindicate  Mr.  Wesley’s  ordination  of  Dr.  Coke  as  a  superintendant,  and  others  as 
ciders,  for  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  How  then,  I  may  ask,  could  1  have 
lyplrl  nt  the  same  time,  that  a  third  order  was  essential,  to  constitute  a  gospel 

Sch  ?  I  appeal  reiery  man  that  has  read  -y  /‘‘'V Maoa 
consulted  the  pieces  on  this  subject  subsequently  published  m  the  Methodist  Maga- 
zine,  of  which  1  acknowledge  myself  the  author,  for  the  correctness  of  the  above 

®^fAT??ue,  I  did  believe,  as  I  believe  still,  that  in  the  primitive  church,  in  the  age 
imrnfdiately  succeeding  the  apostles,  there  were  an  ordei-(I  use  the  word  order 
merely  for  convenience,  to  avoid  circumlocution,  meaning  ttiereby  nothing  more 
than  tliat  they  were  invested  by  consent  of  the  eldership  with  a  power  to  pieside 
over  the  flock  of  Christ,  and  to  discharge  other  duties  not  f 

uresbvters  to  discharge)— of  ministers  denominated  evangelists,  that  these  wcic 
Ft  Sng  superiFtendaits,  (or  bishops  if  any  like  the  term 

ral  oversight  Ff  the  whole  church ;  and  that  these  are  very  nearly  resembled  by  ti  e 
bishops  ol- the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  But  these  w^^ 

ministers  by  divine  appointment  so  essential  that  there  can  be  no  In 

ordinances  ^without  them,  is  a  sentiment  I  neither  now  nor  «;ej  believed  In 
nroof  of  this  see  “  Methodist  Episcopacy,”  p.  56,  where  are  the  following  "or  ls  . 
“It  moreover  appears  highly  probable,  that  whatever  “*o”ly  ‘hese  itm^^ 
evangelists  possessed,  they  derived  it  by  delegation  from  J 

to  whom  belonged  the  criginal  right  of  modifying  the  not 

they  saw  it  expedient  for  the  benefit  of  the  community,  “f 

transcend  the  bounds  of  their  authority  by  transgressing  a  known  precept  ol 

^  As  to  the  account  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  f 

dale’s  Dictionary,  and  afterwards  in  Buck’s  Iheological  Dictionary,  P 

pared  under  the^ sanction  of  the  Book  Committee  before  you  7h“j 

rnp  in  the  book  concern,  I  consider  it  a  simple  statement  of  a  matter  ot  tact,  that 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  acknowledges  three  orders  of  ministers,  deacons, 
elders  and  bishops  which  fact  certainly  no  one  can  contradict,  still  imderstanding 
?he  wVd  tderw^^^^^  to  bishops  as  above  defined..  If  any  choose  to  say 

Sat  we  acknowledge  two  orders  mly,  and  a  superior 

oated  iurisdiction  chiefly  of  an  executive  character,  he  has  my  lull  consent ,  t 
Sot  dispute  about  word!  That  Mr.  Wesley  did,  with  the  aid  of  «thcr  F^byter^ , 
invest  Dr.  Coke  with  fuller  powers  as  a  Methodist  superintendent,  than  he  did 
those  whom  he  denominated  elders,  and  that  he  intended  to  ^ 

Episcopal  Church  among  the  Methodists  in  Amenca,  1 

Tiid  I  heartily  wish  you  success  m  your  undertaking:  for  1  think  it  a  sacred  duty 
we  owe  S  venerable  dead,”  to  vindicate  them  against  such  invidious,  un- 

provoked,  and  unmanly  attacks,  as  those  of  the  author 

tery  of  Methodist  Episcopacy a  title  as  quaint  as  the  contents  of  the  booh  are 
manifestly  unjust  and  erroneous.  r  vre 

Mw-YorJ:  Mv.  1827. 


No.  Ill — The  Minute  to  obey  Mr.  Wesley. 

We  have  shown  that  by  leaving  Mr.  Wesley’s  name  off  the  Minutes,  vyas  simply 
meant  the  rescinding  of  the  Minute  of  the  conference  of  1784,  to  obey  him  m  mat- 

”  sTei?ng?nr;o  ehn®rch government  landalso the  pec^^^^^ 

fhit  art  took  olace.  With  regard  to  the  conference  of  1787,  by  whom  tnat  ivimuic 

was  rescinded!  Mr.  Snethen  said,  AntweFtH  O’KdlvT’l^' 

should  applaud  them  for  renouncing  the  obligation.  Answer  to  J.  U  b.eli. ,  ] 


